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 § 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 1-10 and 15-20 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 1 recites “comparing 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 recited portion is unclear in how the fluidized bed reactor system is being operated based on the comparing step. Is the average of the SGValt and the SGVfm being used to operate the reactor system? Which value (the SGValt or the SGVfm) is being relied upon more for the operating step? It is suggested that Applicant clarify on how each of the SGValt and the SGVfm being used in the method.
Claims 2-10 and 15-20 are rejected due to the indefiniteness of the parent claim, 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 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Burdett et al. (US Publication 2007/0003450; hereinafter Burdett)
With regards to claim 11, Burdett discloses a method comprising:
measuring a pressure for each of two different locations ([0090]) within a fluidized bed reactor system (100; [0044]; FIG. 1) that comprises a reactor capable of containing a fluidized bed (14) and a cycle gas loop (recirculating fluidized bed system; [0053]), wherein one or both of the two different locations is not at a flowmeter;
calculating a pressure drop based on the two measured pressures ([0062]);
calculating a superficial gas velocity (SGValt) for the fluidized bed based on the pressure drop ([0055, 0062, 0140]);
operating the fluidized bed reactor system based at least in part on the SGValt ([0140]); and
producing a polyolefin in the fluidized bed reactor system ([0069]).
With regards to claim 12, Burdett discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the operating of the fluidized bed reactor comprises: modifying an operating parameter of the fluidized bed reactor system ([0140]).
With regards to claim 13, Burdett discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the operating parameter comprises a reactor temperature, a reactor pressure, a reactant feed rate, a purge rate, reactor composition, or any combination thereof ([0140]).
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burdett et al. (US Publication 2007/0003450; hereinafter Burdett) in view of Gysling (US Patent 7,418,877).
With regards to claim 1, Burdett teaches a method comprising:
obtaining a pressure measurement for each of two different locations within a fluidized bed reactor system (see 1-8 in FIG. 2; [0090, 0094]) that comprises a reactor capable of containing a fluidized bed and a cycle gas loop (14) and a cycle gas loop (recirculating fluidized bed system; [0053], wherein one or both of the two different locations is not at a flowmeter;
calculating a pressure drop based on the two obtained pressure measurements ([0062]); and
operating the fluidized bed reactor system ([0106, 0113]).
However, Burdett is silent regarding the method comprising: calculating a first superficial gas velocity (SGValt) for the fluidized bed based on the pressure drop; obtaining a second superficial gas velocity (SGVfm) for the fluidized bed using the flowmeter; comparing the SGValt and the SGVfm; and operating the fluidized bed reactor system ([0106, 0113]) based at least in part on said comparing of the SGValt and the SGVfm.
Gysling teaches a method of calculating a first superficial gas velocity (SGValt) (via 118; FIG. 1) based on the pressure drop (); obtaining a second superficial gas velocity (SGVfm) (via 114; FIG. 1) using the flowmeter (col. 4, lines 31-50); comparing the SGValt and the SGVfm (col. 5, lines 32-49); and operating the system based at least in part on said comparing of the SGValt and the SGVfm (col. 5, line 32 to col. 6, line 7).
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 Burdett with reasonable expectation of accurately measure the gas velocity (col. 3, lines 32-52; Gysling).
With regards to claim 2, Burdett, as combined with Gysling, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein operating the fluidized bed reactor based at least in part on said comparing of the SGValt and the SGVfm comprises: modifying an operating parameter of the fluidized bed reactor system when the comparison of the SGValt and the SGVfm fits a threshold requirement ([0140]; Burdett).
With regards to claim 3, Burdett, as combined with Gysling, teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the operating parameter comprises a reactor temperature, a reactor pressure, a reactant feed rate, a purge rate, reactor composition, or any combination thereof ([0140]; Burdett).
With regards to claim 4, Burdett, as combined with Gysling, teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising taking an action if the comparison of the SGValt and the SGVfm fits an action threshold requirement (col. 6, line 62 to col. 7, line 22 of Gysling and [0140] of Burdett).
With regards to claim 5, Burdett, as combined with Gysling, teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the action comprises one or more of the following: performing remedial actions on the flowmeter; triggering an alarm ([0140]; Burdett); and adding a flow bias or correction factor to the determined SGVfm value so as to control reactor velocity in a desired operating window.
With regards to claim 6, Burdett, as combined with Gysling, teaches the method of claim 1. However, Burdett, as combined with Gysling, is silent regarding the specifics of wherein the comparison is an absolute value of a difference between the SGValt and the SGVfm, and wherein the threshold requirement is the absolute value of the difference between the SGValt and the SGVfm being 0.05 feet per second or greater.
It has been held 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." Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"). In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.") In this particular case, Burdett, as combined with Gysling, teaches a general condition of the comparison and a threshold for operating the system based on the comparison and finding the optimum range by routine experimentation would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform routine experimentation for determining the threshold as taught by Burdett, as combined with Gysling, including the range as claimed with reasonable expectation of operating the fluidized bed reactor system as originally intended.
With regards to claim 7, Burdett, as combined with Gysling, teaches the method of claim 1. However, Burdett, as combined with Gysling, is silent regarding the specifics of wherein the comparison is an absolute value of a difference between the SGValt and the SGVfm, and wherein the threshold requirement is the absolute value of the difference between the SGValt and the SGVfm being 0.20 feet per second.
It has been held 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." Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"). In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.") In this particular case, Burdett, as combined with Gysling, teaches a general condition of the comparison and a threshold for operating the system based on the comparison and finding the optimum range by routine experimentation would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform routine experimentation for determining the threshold as taught by Burdett, as combined with Gysling, including the range as claimed with reasonable expectation of operating the fluidized bed reactor system as originally intended.
With regards to claim 8, Burdett, as combined with Gysling, teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: producing a polyolefin in the fluidized bed reactor system ([0060, 0069]; Burdett).
With regards to claim 9, Burdett, as combined with Gysling, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the flowmeter comprises a Venturi flowmeter (col. 4, lines 47-50; Gysling).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burdett et al. (US Publication 2007/0003450; hereinafter Burdett) in view of Gysling (US Patent 7,418,877), and further in view of Forsythe et al. (US Publication 2018/0238623; hereinafter Forsythe).
With regards to claim 10, Burdett, as combined with Gysling, teaches the method of claim 11. However, Burdett, as combined with Gysling, is silent regarding wherein the flowmeter comprises a Pitot tube.
Forsythe teaches a fluidized bed system, similar to Burdett, 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 utilize one of the known flow meter as taught by Forsythe as the flowmeter as taught by Burdett, as combined with Gysling, with reasonable expectation of measuring flow as originally intended.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burdett et al. (US Publication 2007/0003450; hereinafter Burdett) in view of Forsythe et al. (US Publication 2018/0238623; hereinafter Forsythe).
With regards to claim 14, Burdett teaches the method of claim 11. However, Burdett 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 Burdett, 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 utilize one of the known flow meter as taught by Forsythe as the flowmeter as taught by Burdett with reasonable expectation of measuring flow as originally intended.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burdett et al. (US Publication 2007/0003450; hereinafter Burdett) in view of Gysling (US Patent 7,418,877), and further in view of Cai et al. (US Publication 2016/0289357; hereinafter Cai).
With regards to claim 15, Burdett, as combined with Gysling, teaches (citations to Burdett) the method of claim 1, wherein the two different locations within the fluidized bed reactor system comprise a location (P1) at a top portion of the reactor (i.e. at 5; [0090]; FIG. 2) and a location (P3) along a bottom portion of the fluidized bed within the reactor (i.e. at 6; [0090]; FIG. 2), such that obtaining the pressure measurement for each of said two different locations comprises obtaining a pressure drop across the fluidized bed ([0062]).
However, Burdett, as combined with Gysling, is silent regarding wherein SGValt is calculated using at least one of the following methods: (a) a modified Ergun equation having the form of EQ. 1; (b) an equation having the form of EQ. 3; (c) an equation having the form of EQ. 4; and (d) an equation having the form of EQ. 5.
Cai teaches a method of calculating a superficial gas velocity using (b) an equation having the form of EQ. 3 ([0032]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to calculate the superficial gas velocity as taught by Cai to determine the superficial gas velocity with the acquired data as taught by Burdett, as combined with Gysling, with reasonable expectation of determining the superficial gas velocity for subsequent processing.
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burdett et al. (US Publication 2007/0003450; hereinafter Burdett) in view of Gysling (US Patent 7,418,877), and further in view of Louison et al. (US Publication 2019/0321764; hereinafter Louison).
With regards to claim 16, Burdett, as combined with Gysling, teaches the method of claim 1. However, Burdett, as combined with Gysling, is silent regarding wherein SGValt is calculated using an equation having the form of EQ. 8.
Louison teaches a method of calculating a superficial gas velocity based on a pressure drop ([0088]), wherein SGValt is calculated using an equation having the form of EQ. 8 (Equation 2; [0087-0089]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to calculate the superficial gas velocity as taught by Louison to determine the superficial gas velocity with the acquired data as taught by Burdett, as combined with Gysling, with reasonable expectation of determining the superficial gas velocity for subsequent processing.
With regards to claim 17, Burdett, as combined with Gysling and Louison, teaches the method of claim 16, wherein Koverall is calculated using an empirical correlation determined from data of past operation of the reactor system over a time period during which accuracy of the flow meter is not in question ([0088-0089]; Louison).
With regards to claim 18, Burdett, as combined with Gysling and Louison, teaches the method of claim 16, wherein obtaining the pressure measurement for each of the two different locations within the reactor system comprises obtaining a pressure drop across reactor inlet piping of the reactor system (see FIG. 2 of Burdett).
However, Burdett, as combined with Gysling and Louison is silent regarding wherein Koverall is determined as Koverall=Ki, wherein each Ki is a pressure drop correction factor associated with a location or feature along the reactor inlet piping that causes pressure drop, and further wherein each Ki is selected from the following: Kfriction, Kelbow, Kexit, Kdisc, Kstatichead, and any combination thereof.
It has been held 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." Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"). In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.") In this particular case, Burdett teaches a general condition of the sensing at different positions of the fluidized bed reactor (see FIG. 2 positions 1-8; Burdett) including at the inlet. In addition, Gysling teaches calculating pressure drop at different sensing location (at 112 and 114; FIG. 1; Gysling) with Louison teaching determining the K-factor based on the cross section area ([0088-0089] of Louison teaches determining the K-factor). Thus, determining the pressure drop at the inlet (position 8 of FIG. 2 of Burdett) compared to one of the other position would be routine to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform routine experimentation for determining the pressure drop as taught by Burdett, as combined with Gysling and Louison, including the inlet area as claimed with reasonable expectation of operating the fluidized bed reactor system as originally intended.
With regards to claim 19, Burdett, as combined with Gysling and Louison, teaches the method of claim 16, wherein obtaining the pressure measurement for each of the two different locations within the reactor system comprises obtaining a pressure drop across a distributor plate (at position 6; FIG. 2; Burdett) disposed in a bottom portion of the reactor ([0094]; FIG. 2; Burdett).
However, Burdett, as combined with Gysling and Louison, is silent regarding wherein Koverall is determined as the K value of the distributor plate.
It has been held 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." Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"). In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.") In this particular case, Burdett teaches a general condition of the sensing at different positions of the fluidized bed reactor (see FIG. 2 positions 1-8; Burdett) including at the inlet. In addition, Gysling teaches calculating pressure drop at different sensing location (at 112 and 114; FIG. 1; Gysling) with Louison teaching determining the K-factor based on the cross section area ([0088-0089] of Louison teaches determining the K-factor). Thus, determining the pressure drop at the distributor plate (position 6 of FIG. 2 of Burdett) compared to one of the other position would be routine to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform routine experimentation for determining the pressure drop as taught by Burdett, as combined with Gysling and Louison, including the inlet area as claimed with reasonable expectation of operating the fluidized bed reactor system as originally intended.
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
Prosecution Insights