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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on March 18, 2026 has been received. The replacement drawing is acceptable. Claims 3 and 8-10 are canceled. Claims 1, 2, 4-7, and 11-14 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on March 18, 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-4, 7, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mallison (US 2,777,832) and the rejection of claims 5, 6, and 8-13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mallison have been fully considered and are persuasive. In particular, Mallison fails to disclose or adequately suggest the new limitations set forth in amended claim 1, including that,
“… the reactor, the storage container, and the precipitation tank are configured such that an operating pressure of the reactor and an operating pressure of the precipitation tank are the same, and an operating pressure of the storage container is 1 kg/cm².g to 5 kg/cm². g lower than the operating pressure of the precipitation tank.”
Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further search and consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the newly discovered prior art references to Ross (US 3,345,304) and Okamine (JP 64-38108 A), as detailed below.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, and 11-14 are 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 relationship between “a precipitation tank” (at lines 6-7) and “a precipitation tank” previously set forth in the claim (at line 3) is unclear.
The remaining claims are also rejected because they depend from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 2, 4, 6, 7, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ross (US 3,345,304).
The instant “system” claims are considered apparatus claims. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP § 2114. Also, expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. See MPEP § 2115.
Regarding claim 1, Ross discloses a system for transferring reaction solution (see Figure) comprising:
a reactor 5 that receives and reacts a feed stream (i.e., a stream of materials supplied by a line 13) to form a reaction solution;
a tank (i.e., a surge tank 21; see column 6, lines 55-70) operable as a precipitation tank for precipitating a polymer contained in the reaction solution to form a supernatant (i.e., the reaction solution overflows from the reactor 5 into a first chamber 23 of the surge tank 21, where precipitates can form and settle out of the liquid for removal through a bootleg section 24 and drain 26 at the bottom of the first chamber 23, and wherein the liquid layer (supernatant) that forms over the settled solids can overflow a weir 22 positioned within the surge tank 21 into a second chamber 27 of the surge tank 21);
a reactor discharge pipe (i.e., a reactor effluent line 20) that is provided on a side portion of the reactor 5 at a position corresponding to a surface height of the reaction solution in the reactor (i.e., the reaction solution enters the line 20 via an overflow nozzle in the reactor 5 surrounded by a quieting well (not shown), see column 6, lines 42-45, and column 7, lines 61-63; therefore, the line 20 is positioned at the surface height of the reaction solution in the reactor 5, so as to enable its “overflow” into the line 20) and connected to the precipitation tank 21 to transfer the reaction solution from the reactor 5 to the precipitation tank 21; and
a storage container (i.e., a neutralization vessel 30) that receives from the precipitation tank 21 and stores the supernatant (i.e., the separated liquid flows from the second chamber 27 of the surge tank 21 to the neutralization vessel 30 via a line 28);
wherein the reactor 5, the storage container 30, and the precipitation tank 21 are configured such that:
an operating pressure of the reactor 5 and an operating pressure of the precipitation tank 21 are the same (i.e., since the vent line 15 from the reactor 5 and the vent line 24 from the surge tank 21 are tied together, the operating pressure of the reactor 5 and the operating pressure of the surge tank 21 are the same; for example, both pressures were maintained at 65 psig; see column 7, lines 63-66); and
an operating pressure of the storage container 30 can be 1 kg/cm2.g to 5 kg/cm2.g lower than the operating pressure of the tank 21 (i.e., for example, as stated above, the pressure of the surge tank 21 was maintained at 65 psig (which is approximately 4.57 kg/cm2.g), and the pressure of the neutralization tank 30 was maintained at essentially atmospheric pressure (which is approximately 0 kg/cm2.g); therefore, the operating pressure of the neutralization tank 30 was 4.57 kg/cm2.g lower than the operating pressure of the surge tank 21; and the apparatus would have been capable of producing other operating pressure differences between the surge tank 21 and the neutralization tank 30 by adjusting the pressure in the reactor 5 and in the neutralization tank 30 during an intended operation).
Regarding claim 2, Ross (see Figure) further discloses that the reactor discharge pipe 20 does not include a control valve.
Regarding claim 4, Ross (see Figure) further discloses that the reactor discharge pipe 20 is provided to be inclined downward from the reactor 5 to the precipitation] tank 21.
Regarding claim 6, Ross further discloses that the precipitation tank 21 is configured such that an operating temperature of the tank can be set to a desired temperature value (i.e., hot oil tracing (not shown) can be used to maintain the surge tank 21 at a desired temperature, see column 6, lines 61-63; for example, the surge vessel 21 can be maintained at 190 °F (which is approx. 87.8 °C), see column 7, lines 66-67). However, the recitation of a specific operating temperature of the precipitation tank is directed to an intended use of the apparatus which does not structurally differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art.
Regarding claim 7, the further recitation of a specific operating pressure of the precipitation tank 21 is directed to an intended use of the apparatus that does not structurally differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art. The system of Ross would have been capable of adjusting the operating pressure of the precipitation tank 21 to a desired pressure value during an intended operation.
Regarding claim 14, the further recitation with respect to the intended use of the reactor as an “ethylene oligomerization reactor” does not structurally differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art. The reactor 5 in the system of Ross would have been capable of operating as an ethylene oligomerization reactor by feeding the appropriate reaction materials to the reactor 5 and maintaining the appropriate process conditions in the reactor 5 for performing the ethylene oligomerization reaction.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross (US 3,345,304).
Ross depicts the reactor discharge pipe 20 as having a slope at a predetermined angle. Ross does not state the specific angle shown. However, Ross discloses that the first chamber 23 of the surge tank 21, which receives the overflow of reaction solution from the reactor discharge pipe 20, should have a linear velocity that is “quite low” so that solid particles can settle out of the liquid (see column 6, lines 55-61). One of ordinary skill in the engineering art would have recognized that the rate at which the reaction solution overflows by gravity from the reactor 5 into the first chamber 23 of the surge tank 21 depends on the angle of the slope of the reactor discharge pipe 20, where a flatter slope of the reactor discharge pipe 20 would be expected to deliver the reaction solution at a slower rate in comparison to a steeper slope.
Therefore, the further recitation of a specific angle of the slope of the reactor discharge pipe, from 5° to 30°, is not considered to confer patentability to the claim since the precise angle would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to routinely optimize the angle of the slope of the reactor discharge pipe 20 in the system of Ross to obtain the desired overflow rate of the reaction solution from the reactor 5 to the precipitating tank 21 for maintaining a “quite low” linear velocity to facilitate the settling of solid particles out of the liquid, and where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross (US 3,345,304) in view of Okamine (JP 64-38108 A).
Regarding claim 11, Ross (see Figure) discloses that a precipitation tank discharge pipe 28 is connected from the precipitation tank 21 to the storage container 30; wherein the pipe 28 is formed in a bottom of the tank 21 to remove the supernatant from the tank 21. Ross, however, fails to disclose the claimed precipitation tank construction, in which the precipitation tank comprises a tank discharge pipe formed in a side portion of the tank at a height where the supernatant in the tank is formed.
Okamine (see FIG. 1 and translation) discloses a precipitation tank (i.e., a solid-liquid separation tank 1 providing a precipitation function) comprising: a feed pipe (i.e., a pipe connected to a charging port 3) for introducing raw materials into the tank; and a discharge pipe formed in a side portion of the tank 1 at a height where a supernatant 8 in the tank is formed (i.e., a delivery pipe 9, 10, or 11 is connected to a side wall of the tank 1, at a height where a liquid layer 8 (supernatant) is formed in the tank 1).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the claimed precipitation tank construction for the precipitation tank 21 in the system of Ross because the claimed precipitation tank construction, which includes a precipitation tank discharge pipe formed in a side portion of the tank at a height of the supernatant in the tank, would have been effective for rapidly precipitating solid particles and removing the supernatant, since the solid particles would have settled rapidly to the bottom of the tank and a clogging of the discharge pipe would be avoided, and, furthermore, the precipitation tank could be fabricated at low cost due to its simple structure, as taught by Okamine (see Abstract).
Regarding claim 12, Ross (see Figure) discloses that the precipitation tank discharge pipe 28 includes a control valve (i.e., a valve (shown) in the line 28, operated by a flow controller 41). Okamine (see FIG. 1) also discloses that the precipitation tank discharge pipe includes a control valve (i.e., each delivery pipe 9, 10, 11 is equipped with an opening/closing valve 12, 13, 14).
Regarding claim 13, Ross (see Figure) discloses that the precipitation tank discharge pipe 28 is provided at a position lower than a height at which the reactor discharge pipe 20 is connected to the precipitation tank 21. Okamine (see FIG. 1) also discloses that the precipitation tank discharge pipe 9, 10, 11 is provided at a position lower than a height at which an inlet pipe 3 is connected to the tank 1.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
* * *
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
Prosecution Insights