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
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hideki et al. (JP 2010280867; see machine translation; hereinafter Hideki).
With regards to claim 11, Hideki teaches a method comprising:
measuring a pressure for each of two different locations (90; [0134]) within a fluidized bed reactor system (10C; FIG. 4) that comprises a reactor capable of containing a fluidized bed and a cycle gas loop (see L30-L40), wherein one or both of the two different locations (see dashed lines connected to 90; FIG. 4) is not at a flowmeter (no flowmeter located near 90);
calculating a pressure drop based on the two measured pressures ([0134]);
calculating a first superficial gas velocity (SGValt) (gas tower velocity) for the fluidized bed based on the pressure drop ([0115]);
operating the fluidized bed reactor system based at least in part on the SGValt ([0127]); and
producing a polyolefin in the fluidized bed reactor system ([0126-0127]).
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hideki et al. (JP 2010280867; see machine translation; hereinafter Hideki) in view of Gysling (US Patent 7,418,877).
With regards to claim 12, Hideki teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the operating of the fluidized bed reactor comprises modifying an operating parameter of the fluidized bed reactor system ([0127]). However, Hideki is silent regarding the method comprising obtaining a second superficial gas velocity (SGVfm) for the fluidized bed using the flowmeter.
Gysling teaches a method of calculating a superficial gas velocity based on the pressure drop (via 118; FIG. 1; col. 4, lines 31-50); obtaining a second superficial gas velocity (SGVfm) using the flowmeter (114; FIG. 1; col. 4, lines 31-50).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method as taught by Gysling to the method as taught by Hideki with reasonable expectation of accurately measure the gas velocity (col. 3, lines 32-52; Gysling).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hideki et al. (JP 2010280867; see machine translation; hereinafter Hideki) in view of Forsythe et al. (US Publication 2018/0238623; hereinafter Forsythe).
With regards to claim 14, Hideki teaches the method of claim 11. However, Hideki is silent regarding wherein (a) the flowmeter comprises a Venturi flowmeter or (b) the flowmeter comprises a Pitot tube.
Forsythe teaches a fluidized bed system, similar to Hideki, wherein an example of a flowmeter comprises a Pitot tube ([0038]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the flowmeter as taught by Forsythe to the fluidized bed reactor system as taught by Hideki with reasonable expectation of measuring flow as originally intended ([0174]; Hideki).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 and 15-20 are allowed.
Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior arts on record fail to anticipate and/or suggest the combination of the claimed invention. Specifically, the prior arts fail to teach, inter alia, the limitation of “comparing the SGValt and the SGVfm, wherein the comparison comprises an absolute value of a difference between the SGValt and the SGVfm; and operating the fluidized bed reactor system based at least in part on said comparing of the SGValt and the SGVfm”.
The closest prior art on record, Hideki, teaches a method of operating a fluidized bed reactor (see above). However, Hideki does not teach using two different types of sensor (pressure sensor(s) and flowmeter) as required by the claims. Thus, Hideki does not teach “comparing the SGValt and the SGVfm, wherein the comparison comprises an absolute value of a difference between the SGValt and the SGVfm; and operating the fluidized bed reactor system based at least in part on said comparing of the SGValt and the SGVfm” as required by claims 1 and 13.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 11-12 and 14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUANG X.L NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1585. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, STEPHEN D. MEIER can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/QXN/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/STEPHEN D MEIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
