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 by Applicant on 16 March 2026 has been considered. It is acknowledged that claim 1 has been amended by Applicant. Accordingly, claims 1-10 are under full consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that incorporating the diameter difference between condensing and disengaging section taught by Kashammer into Azam would make Azam unsuitable for the intended purpose of providing a reflux in the bubble reactor for cooling purposes because the diameter difference taught by Kashammer prevents condensate from dripping back into the vessel. Examiner respectfully disagrees as Azam only mentions reflux once, and specifically says, “A part of the formed linear alpha olefins, which are gaseous under reaction conditions, can be condensed at a top portion of the reactor and can serve as reflux for cooling purposes” (see Col. 5 Lines 53-56). Azam does not require reflux and certainly does not disclose reflux as being an intended purpose of the invention, but instead describes reflux as being an optional additional feature. Further, Azam does not describe the reflux feature as requiring condensate to drip back into the vessel, nor does Azam disclose any criticality regarding unrestricted condensate fallback. The disclosure of Azam regarding reflux is broad and does not limit the structure or geometry by which condensation and disengagement occur.
Applicant further argues that it is inappropriate to combine Kashammer with Azam because Kashammer relates to a fractional distillation apparatus while Azam and the claimed invention are related to bubble column reactors. Examiner respectfully disagrees and reminds Applicant that 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, Kashammer is in the same field of multi-phase (gas phase and liquid phase; see [0017]) bubble columns (suitable devices are… bubble caps; see [0035]).
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the features of “reaction zone in which a reaction of a gaseous reactant is carried out in a liquid reaction medium” and the claimed condensation zone are not obvious from Kashammer, Examiner reminds Applicant that Azam was cited as disclosing this limitation, not Kashammer. Applicant further states that “Kashammer teaches the opposite of Azam, and therefore teaches away from reaching the essential technical idea of Azam as well as the bubble column reactor of claim 1”, specifically because Kashammer seeks to prevent dripping back of polymer. Examiner respectfully disagrees, as Kashammer does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage reflux cooling within a reaction vessel, and the argument that Kashammer “teaches the opposite of Azam” does not have any basis. Examiner reminds Applicant that 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).
Lastly, Applicant argues that Kashammer does not make obvious the newly added limitations requiring “a reaction medium supply line for supplying a liquid reaction medium to the reaction zone and a gaseous reactant supply pipe for supplying a gaseous reactant to the down chamber”. Examiner points out that these are newly added limitations of which Kashammer is not relied upon to reject.
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 down chamber (a bottom section of the bubble column reactor; see Col. 5 Lines 44-45 and annotated Fig. 1 below); a dispersion plate provided above the down chamber (a gas distribution system attached to a bottom section of the bubble column reactor; see Col. 5 Lines 44-45 and annotated Fig. 1 below) 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); a reaction medium supply line connected to the reaction zone and configured to supply the liquid reaction medium to the reaction zone through the reaction medium supply line (see Fig. 1, liquid heavy linear alpha olefins 4, solvent 2); and a gaseous reactant supply pipe connected to the down chamber and configured to supply the gaseous reactant to the down chamber through the gaseous reactant supply line (Ethylene 1 can be introduced to a bubble column reactor via a gas distribution system attached to a bottom section of the bubble column reactor; see Col. 5 Lines 43-45 and annotated Fig. 1 below).
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
397
478
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
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 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