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 .
Summary
This is a non-final office action for application 18/026,905 filed on 17 March 2023. Claims 1-10 are currently pending in this application.
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 1-4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azam et al. (US-11420914-B2), hereinafter “Azam”, in view of Kashammer et al. (US-20110224401-A1), hereinafter “Kashammer”.
Azam discloses bubble column reactor (bubble column reactor; see Col. 5 Line 51) comprising: a reaction zone (reaction area; see Col. 5 Line 52) configured to carry out a reaction (oligomerization of ethylene; see Col. 3 Line 67) of a gaseous reactant (Ethylene can be introduced… via a gas distribution system; see Col. 5 Lines 43-44) is carried out in a liquid reaction medium (the process can be conducted in the presence of… a liquid alpha olefin; see Col. 5 Lines 6-7); a disengaging section provided above the reaction zone and configured such that a first gas stream rising from the reaction zone is introduced into the disengaging section (see annotated figure and explanation below); and a condensation zone provided above the disengaging section and configured such that a second gas stream rising from the disengaging section is introduced into the condensation zone (formed linear alpha olefins, which are gaseous under reaction conditions, can be condensed at a top portion of the reactor; see Col. 5 Lines 54-56 and explanation below regarding the disengaging section).
Regarding the limitation claiming, “a disengaging section provided above the reaction zone and into which a first gas stream rising from the reaction zone is introduced”, the instant specification and drawings represent the claimed disengaging zone as empty space above the reaction zone and below the condensation zone. There is are no clear physical separations/boundaries that define the disengaging zone. Therefore, any free space above the reaction zone in the bubble column reactor can be considered a disengaging zone. Azam discloses that gas formed in the reaction section is condensed in a top portion (see Col. 5 Lines 54-55), and the space between the reaction section and condensing section of Azam is therefore a disengaging section as defined by the instant application.
PNG
media_image1.png
341
491
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Azam does not explicitly teach a diameter difference between the condensing section and disengaging section. However, Kashammer discloses a diameter of the condensation zone being greater than a diameter of the disengaging section (The largest characteristic cross-sectional dimension in the upper region of the transition, i.e. nearest the condenser, is preferably smaller than the smallest characteristic cross-sectional dimension of the condenser;
see [0037]). The transition section disclosed by Kashammer is analogous to the claimed disengaging section, which was disclosed by Azam, because the transition section of Kashammer is described as, “transition between vessel and condenser through which gas can go from the vessel into the condenser” (see [0033]).
Azam and Kashammer are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of multi-phase bubble columns. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Azam by incorporating the teachings of Kashammer and making the diameter of the disengaging section smaller than that of the condensing section. Doing so can prevent the condensate from flowing or dripping back into the vessel (see Kashammer [0035]) and the entrainment of liquid from the bottom region (see Kashammer [0041]).
Regarding Claim 2, Azam and Kashammer together disclose the bubble column reactor of claim 1. Kashammer further discloses the diameter of the condensation zone being 1.3 times to 3 times the diameter of the disengaging section (dimension in the upper region of the transition… is preferably smaller than the… dimension of the condenser, for example in the range from 50% to 99%; see [0037]). This range would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because it would have enabled the effects of different diameters as explained above. Further, MPEP 2144.05.II states that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”.
Regarding Claim 3, Azam and Kashammer together disclose the bubble column reactor of claim 1. The range claimed in this claim lies within the range claimed in claim 2, and the range disclosed by Kashammer, specified in the claim 2 rejection, also falls within the claimed range of claim 3. For these reasons, please refer to the claim 2 rejection as the rejection of claim 3 follows the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 4, Azam and Kashammer together disclose the bubble column reactor of claim 1. Azam further discloses the condensation zone including a cooling (condensed… and can serve as reflux for cooling purposes; see Col. 5 Lines 55-56) coil (see Fig. 1 Part 6) and wherein the cooling coil is provided from an upper portion to a lower portion inside the condensation zone (see Fig. 1 Part 6) in a wound state (This is true by definition of a coil).
Regarding Claim 10, Azam and Kashammer together disclose the bubble column reactor of claim 1. Azam further discloses the gaseous (gaseous ethylene was bubbled; see Col. 6 Line 66) reactant including an ethylene monomer (oligomerization of ethylene; see Abstract). Further, this is a functional limitation that does not further limit the structure of the reactor, but merely sets forth a manner of operating the reactor. The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). Functional limitations that do not limit the structure need not be given further due consideration in determining patentability of an apparatus.
Claims 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azam et al. (US-11420914-B2), hereinafter “Azam”, in view of Kashammer et al. (US-20110224401-A1), hereinafter “Kashammer” and Tipton et al. (US-6553778-B2), hereinafter “Tipton”.
Regarding Claim 5, Azam and Kashammer together disclose the bubble column reactor of claim 4. As explained in the claim 4 rejection, Azam discloses a cooling coil provided from the upper portion to the lower portion inside the condensation zone in a wound state.
Azam does not explicitly teach multiple cooling coils. However, Tipton discloses a first cooling coil and a second cooling coil (Condenser 30 comprises two separate heat exchanger coils; see Col. 4 Lines 13-14).
KSR Rationale C (see MPEP 2141) states that it is obvious to use a “known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way”. 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 apply the known technique of using multiple cooling coils in a condenser, as taught by Tipton, to the condenser disclosed by Azam in order to improve it by enabling use of more than one cooling circuit; see Col. 3 Lines 24-25).
Regarding Claim 6, Azam, Kashammer, and Tipton together disclose the bubble column reactor of claim 5. Tipton further discloses wherein the first cooling coil and the second cooling coil are connected to each other in parallel (see Fig. 1 Parts 32 and 34 – the condensing coils). This modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because it allows the gas to pass through the individual condenser coils in parallel (see Col. 2 Lines 11-12). Tipton also further discloses an end of the first cooling coil extending upwardly and connecting to an upper end of the second cooling coil (working fluid enters condenser coil 140… and exits into interconnection conduit 152… and enters the condenser structure 102. The working fluid passes through the remaining portion of condenser coil 140 in condenser structure 102; see Col. 5 Lines 23-30). This modification also would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it enables the same volume of airflow at the same temperature to the two condenser coils; see Col. 5 Lines 10-15). Regarding the limitation specifically claiming that the lower end of the coil extends upwards, the courts have held that a mere rearrangement of parts are unpatentable so long as shifting the position would not modify the operation of the device, which is true in this case. See In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding Claim 7, Azam, Kashammer, and Tipton together disclose the bubble column reactor of claim 6. Azam further discloses the first cooling coil including an inlet of the first cooling coil provided at an upper end (see Fig. 1 Part 6). Regarding the limitation claiming, “wherein a temperature of a refrigerant introduced into the inlet of the first cooling coil is -10 'C to -5 'C”, this is a functional limitation that does not further limit the structure of the condenser or coils, but merely sets forth a manner of operating the condenser and condenser coils. The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). Functional limitations that do not limit the structure need not be given further due consideration in determining patentability of an apparatus.
Regarding Claim 8, Azam, Kashammer, and Tipton together disclose the bubble column reactor of claim 5. Tipton further discloses the first cooling coil and the second cooling coil are spaced apart from each other (see Fig. 1 Parts 32 and 34), and wherein a refrigerant (working fluid… may be any chemical refrigerant; see Col. 3 Lines 30-31) is introduced into respective inlets provided at upper ends of the first and second cooling coils (working fluid from the first cooling circuit travels to condenser through conduit 23, while working fluid from second cooling circuit travels through conduit 25; see Col. 4 Lines 10-13 and Fig. 1) and the refrigerant is discharged through respective outlets provided at lower ends of the first and second cooling coils (upon leaving condenser 30, working fluid of the first and second cooling circuits travels through interconnection conduits 33 and 35; see Col. 4 Lines 24-26 and Fig. 1). 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 enables the condenser coils to operate with heat transfer parameters that correspond to the transfer capacities of their respective cooling circuits; see Tipton, Col. 4 Lines 15-20). Further, Azam discloses a cooling coil with an inlet at the top and outlet at the bottom. When modifying Azam by incorporating a second, parallel coil, as taught by Tipton, it would have naturally followed that the second coil be oriented in the same way.
Regarding Claim 9, Azam, Kashammer, and Tipton together disclose the bubble column reactor of claim 5. Azam further discloses wherein a ratio (H2/H1) of a height of the condensation zone (H2) to a height of the disengaging section (H1) is 1.2 to 2.0 (see Fig. 1, wherein if a ruler is taken to the disengaging zone and condensation zone, the condensation zone is about twice the height to the disengaging section).
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