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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 10-2100463 to Choi et al (Choi) (Machine Translation has been used).
Regarding claim 1, Choi discloses a sparger comprising:
a main body (10, figs. 1-5; [23]-[30]) including a plurality of holes (20, figs. 1-5; [23]-[30]);
a protruding pipe (31, figs. 1-5; [23]-[30]) extending upward along an outer circumferential surface of the plurality of holes (31a, figs. 1-5; [23]-[32]); and
a side pipe (33, figs. 1-5; [23]-[30]) extending from a side surface of the protruding pipe.
Regarding claim 2, Choi discloses the sparger of claim 1, wherein the side pipe includes:
a horizontal pipe (see fig. 2) part which horizontally extends from the side surface of the protruding pipe; and
a downward pipe (33a,b, figs. 1-5; [23]-[30]) part which extends downward from an end of the horizontal pipe part.
Regarding claim 3, Choi discloses the sparger of claim 2, wherein an end of the downward pipe part and an upper end of the main body are spaced apart (figs. 1-5; [23]-[30]).
Regarding claim 4, Choi discloses the sparger of claim 2, wherein an end of the downward pipe part includes an inclined part so that a surface height of a portion adjacent to the protruding pipe is higher than an opposing portion (each hole 34 of the slanted pipe 33 will be inclined in such a way that the upper portion of the hole will be closer to 31 than the lower portion; figs. 1-5).
Regarding claim 5, Choi discloses the sparger of claim 2, wherein an angle between the horizontal pipe part and the downward pipe part is 75 to 135 (figs. 1-5; [34]).
Regarding claim 6, Choi discloses the sparger of claim 1, wherein the sparger is configured such that a gaseous material supplied from a lower portion of the main body through the plurality of holes to passes through the protruding pipe and moves upward, and the sparger is configured such that a part of the gaseous material moving through the protruding pipe is discharged through the side pipe (function of the apparatus; figs. 1-5).
Regarding claim 8, Choi discloses the sparger of claim 1, wherein the sparger satisfies the following Equation 1:
LP>LB
wherein LP is a height of the protruding pipe, and LB is a thickness of the main body (figs. 1-5).
Regarding claim 9, Choi discloses the sparger of claim 1, wherein the side pipe is 2 to 4 side pipes (figs. 1-5).
Regarding claim 10, Choi discloses a reactor comprising: a monomer supply line (10, figs. 1-5; [23]-[30]) configured to supply a gaseous monomer stream; and the sparger of claim 1 for dispersing the gaseous monomer stream supplied through the monomer supply line (See rejection of claim 1 above).
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.
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(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi
Regarding claim 7, Choi discloses the sparger of claim 6, wherein the sparger is configured such that a flow rate of the gaseous material discharged through the side pipe is 16.67 to 25% of a flow rate of the gaseous material supplied through the holes (due to 2 rows of 2 blades which would give 25% rate or 2 rows of 3 blades which would give 16.67% rate), but does not explicitly disclose any other configurations that would result in having the side pipe flow rate between 5-15%.
However, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have additional number of blades in each row or additional rows such that the resulting flow rate is between 5 and 15%, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 9,683,784 to Christians et al.
US 8,302,426 to De Larminat et al.
US 7,718,138 to Krejci et al.
US 7,112,262 to Bethge
US 6,932,889 to Holcomb
US 3,630,851 to Kawaguchi et al.
US 3,197,387 to Lawrance
US 2191919 to Thayer
US 2023/0356166 to Raja et al.
US 2023/0211358 to Hunt et al.
US 2023/0072602 to Raja et al.
US 2017/0210708 to Nelson et al.
CN 201605166 to Li et al.
All references above describe general state of art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAPINDER SINGH whose telephone number is (571)270-1774. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:30 PM.
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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at (571) 270-7878. 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.
/DAPINDER SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746