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 18/030,354 filed on 05 April 2023. Claims 1-12 are currently pending in this application.
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 2, 7, and 8 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.
Claim 2 is indefinite because it is unclear how a single density meter can be disposed in multiple locations. Claim 1 describes the density meter as being provided at a rear end, or downstream, from where the feed supply lines connect to the solvent vessel discharge line, yet claim 2 attempts to claim that the density meter is between two feed streams on the solvent vessel discharge line. A person of ordinary skill in the art cannot be reasonably apprised as to how a single density meter can be both downstream of both supply lines, but also upstream of one of the supply lines. Further, it is also unclear how a single density meter can be placed in both the solvent vessel discharge line and the buffer vessel discharge line.
Claim 7 is indefinite for the same reasons as claim 2.
Claim 8 is indefinite for the same reasons as claim 2.
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 1-2, 4, 6-8, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US-20160282251-A1), hereinafter “Wang”, in view of Barroux (US-7289943-B2).
Regarding Claim 1, Wang discloses a solvent recirculation system (solvent-rich phase is… recycled; see [0130] and Fig. 1)) comprising: a solvent vessel (reactors 1 and 2, vessel 4, devolatilizer 5, devolatilizer 7) discharge line configured to convey a solvent stream discharged from a solvent vessel (any of the lines connecting 1, 2, 4, 5, or 7 to flash drum 11; see Fig. 1) and connect the solvent vessel and a buffer vessel (solvent flash drum 11; see [0128]); a buffer vessel discharge line (line exiting flash drum 11, see Fig. 1) configured to convey a feed stream discharged from the buffer vessel (recycle solvent flash drum 11; see [0128] and “solvent rich phase is… recycled back to the reactor; see [0130]); one or more feed supply lines connected to the solvent vessel discharge line (see Fig. 1, Parts [M] and [K]); a density meter (Coriolis meters; see [0005]) provided at a rear end of a point where the one or more feed supply lines are connected to the solvent vessel discharge line (see Fig. 2, Coriolis flow meters 1 and 2 and [0133]); and a calculation part (DOS was determined by the following equation; see [0136]) receiving information on measured values of the density meter and a mass flow meter (the Coriolis flow meters measure density which is used in the DOS equation, and are also capable of measuring mass flow; see [0136]).
Wang does not explicitly teach the claimed composition prediction configuration of the calculation part. However, Barroux discloses a calculation part (simulation allowing to calculate; see Col. 6 Lines 17-18) that uses measured values of density (the data necessary for equilibrium calculations and for modelling… are defined using… a priori data relative to at least the density; see Col. 5 Lines 29-34), and is configured to predict a composition of a stream (estimating the detailed composition; see Col. 6 Line 36) using an equation of state (phase properties are calculated by a state equation; see Col. 6 Lines 16-17) and a mass balance (determining by material balance the compositions of the separation products; see Col. 5 Lines 1-2).
Wang and Barroux are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of process modeling and determining composition or phase behavior of multicomponent fluid mixtures. Further, Barroux is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor because it addresses determining the composition and phase behavior of multicomponent fluid mixtures. Wang seeks to estimate characteristics of process streams in separation systems, and Barroux offers techniques for predicting fluid composition which directly correlates to stream characteristics. 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 Wang by incorporating the teachings of Barroux and including composition estimations. Doing so has the additional benefit of enabling the completion of phase property calculations when detailed compositional information is produced (see Barroux, Col. 8 Lines 64-66).
Regarding Claim 2, Wang and Barroux together disclose the solvent recirculation system of claim 1. Wang further discloses wherein the one or more feed supply lines comprises two or more feed supply lines (see Fig. 1, Parts [M] and [K]).
Regarding the limitation claiming, “wherein the density meter is provided in all or a part between points where the two or more feed lines are connected to the solvent discharge line, and provided in the buffer vessel discharge line”, Wang discloses a density meter being placed on every stream exiting a liquid-liquid separation vessel, which is analogous to a solvent vessel (flow meters to measure the actual density of each stream exiting a liquid-liquid separation vessel; see [0005]). Further, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the density meter at the claimed locations because process instrumentation is routinely installed along conduits or vessels carrying the fluid to obtain property measurements such as density for monitoring or calculation purposes. Selecting a particular location along the flow path would have been a predictable placement yielding the expected result of measuring the density of the fluid at that point.
Regarding Claim 4, Wang and Barroux together disclose the solvent recirculation system of claim 1. Wang further discloses wherein the solvent vessel includes a solvent vessel supply line (see Fig. 1, wherein any of the lines entering 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, can be considered supply lines to solvent vessels). As explained in the claim 2 rejection, Wang discloses flow meters on the outlets of all liquid-liquid separation (LLS) vessels. In Fig. 1, it is clear that the outlet of vessel 4 is the inlet of vessel 5, and therefore can be considered a solvent supply to a solvent vessel. Accordingly, a flow meter being disposed on the outlet of vessel 4 also means that that flow meter is disposed on the feed supply line of vessel 5.
Regarding Claim 6, the limitations of this claim do not exceed those of claim 2. Please refer to the claim 2 rejection as the rejection of claim 6 follows the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 7, the limitations of this claim do not exceed those of claim 2. Please refer to the claim 2 rejection as the rejection of claim 7 follows the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 8, the limitations of this claim do not exceed those of claim 2, with the exception of a third feed supply line. Please refer to the claim 2 rejection as the rejection of the shared limitations in claim 8 follow the same rationale. Regarding the limitation claiming a third feed supply line, this is simply a duplication of parts and is a process parameter that is adjusted based on the specific process occurring in the system. The instant specification explicitly states that “the number of feed supply lines may be the same as the number of monomer components required to prepare the desired product in the polymerization process” (see Pg. 12, para. 1 of the instant specification). The court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding Claim 11, Wang and Barroux together disclose the solvent recirculation system of claim 1. Wang further discloses wherein a heat exchanger (heat exchanger; see [0131]) is provided between the point where the feed supply line located at the rearmost end of the one or more feed supply ines in the solvent vessel discharge line is connected and the buffer vessel (passed through a heat exchanger, and then fed to the first devolatizer [5]; see [0131] and Fig. 1, which shows devolatizer [5] disposed after the last feed stream [K] and before the buffer vessel 11).
Regarding Claim 12, the limitations of this claim does not exceed those of claim 1. The limitations of this claim require the same structure as presented in claim 1. Please refer to the claim 1 rejection as the rejection of this claim follows the same rationale.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US-20160282251-A1), hereinafter “Wang”, in view of Barroux (US-7289943-B2) and Jeong (KR-20200059840-A).
Regarding Claim 3, Wang and Barroux together disclose the solvent recirculation system of claim 1. Wang further discloses wherein the solvent vessel includes one or more of a liquid solvent recirculation line (the solvent-rich phase is separated, cooled, filtered, and recycled; see [0130]).
Wang does not explicitly teach a gas recirculation line. However, Jeong discloses a gas solvent recirculation line (“stripper… including an upper outlet for discharging gaseous solvent”; see [0044] and “recycling the stripper upper discharge stream”; see [0050]).
Wang and Jeong are both considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of solvent recirculation systems. 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 modify Wang by incorporating the teachings of Jeong and including a gas recirculation line. Doing so would have increased solvent recovery, and would have utilized waste heat (see Jeong [0050]).
Claims 5 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US-20160282251-A1), hereinafter “Wang”, in view of Barroux (US-7289943-B2) and Tsuji et al. (US-20180002457-A1), hereinafter “Tsuji”.
Regarding Claim 5, Wang and Barroux together disclose the solvent recirculation system of claim 1. Wang further discloses wherein the solvent vessel includes a thermometer and a pressure gauge. Specifically, Wang discloses control of pressure in the LLS (The pressure in the LLS is reduced… to 10-60 bar; see [0130]). It is understood that precise control of pressure requires the presence on some pressure monitoring system or pressure gauge.
Wang does not explicitly teach the use of a thermometer. However, Tsuji discloses a solvent vessel that includes a thermometer (see Fig. 1, thermometer 11d [0178]) and a pressure gauge (see Fig. 1, pressure gauge 10d [0178]).
Wang and Tsuji are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of systems for handling solvent. 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 modify Wang by incorporating the teachings of Tsuji and including a thermometer and pressure gauge. Doing so would allow measurement of the temperature and pressure (see Tsuji [0178]).
Regarding Claim 9, Wang and Barroux together disclose the solvent recirculation system of claim 1. Barroux further discloses performing calculations under given pressure and temperature conditions (see Col. 8 Lines 18-19). With the thermometer and pressure gauge disclosed by Tsuji, it would naturally follow that the readings from those instruments would be transmitted to the calculation part because Barroux explicitly disclosed the use of the temperature and pressure values for calculations. Regarding the specific claimed position of the thermometer and pressure gauge, this is a matter of routine engineering design choice depending on where measurements are desired. This placement does not produce a different technical effect, change system operation, improve measurement accuracy, or enable new calculations. Instead, it offers a predictable location for monitoring process conditions. Further, the instant specification teaches that the thermometer and pressure gauge can be disposed in multiple different places within the system, indicating that the placement choice is interchangeable, depending on where in the system temperature and pressure readings are desired. See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding Claim 10, Wang and Barroux together disclose the solvent recirculation system of claim 1. The limitations of this claim do not exceed those of claim 9, with the exception of the specific placement of the thermometer and pressure gauge. Please refer to the claim 9 rejection as the rejection of claim 10 follows the same rationale.
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
Prosecution Insights