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(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 5,929,180 (herein Chinh).
As to claim 1, Chinh discloses a polyolefin production apparatus (see abstract, col. 5, lines 44-63, figure 5 and examples) comprising:
A gas-phase polymerization reactor (1) that polymerizes an olefin monomer to produce polyolefin powder. See col. 2, line 60 through col. 3, line 48, figures 1 and 3 and examples.
A solid-gas separator (degassing chamber 19 for separating polymer from gaseous mixture). See paragraph bridging col. 5, lines 30-45, col. 7-8, figures 1, 5 and 5 and examples.
A circulating pipe (conduit) both ends connected to the solid-gas separator (19) and provided with a first compressor (23). See figure 5 and examples.
A hopper (14). See figure 5, col. 4, lines 40-55, and examples.
A first powder conveying pipe (conduit, 12) connecting the gas-phase polymerization reactor and the hopper and provided with a first valve (13) halfway and a second powder conveying pipe (15) connecting an outlet of the hopper and the circulation pipe and provided with a second valve (16) halfway. See col. 4, lines 44-67, col. 5, lines 10-30, figure 5 and examples.
As to claim 2, the first powder conveying pipe (12) is positioned that the opening in the hopper (14) is lower than the opening on a side closer to the gas phase polymerization reactor (1). See figure 5.
As to claim 3, the apparatus comprises a first gas-return pipe (17) communicating the gas-phase polymerization reactor (1) and the hopper (14) and has a third valve (18). See figure 5, col. 5, lines 12-29 and examples.
As to claim 4, the apparatus comprises a a communication pipe communicating pipe (17) communicating the an upper portion of the hopper (14) and the circulation pipe with a fourth valve (18). See figure 5, col. 5, lines 12-29 and examples.
As to claim 5, there is a second gas return pipe (5) connecting the separator (19) with the reactor (1) and having a compressor (8). See col. 4, lines 30-67, col. 5, lines 10-30, figure 5 and examples.
As to claim 6, the claim is an apparatus not a method. However, the claim limitation of controlling discharge rates is a method design limitation of using the apparatus. In the instant case, it is clear that the apparatus may be operated under various conditions and thus is capable of achieving higher gas discharge rate from the first compressor.
As to claim 7, the pipe (conduit) has an internal diameter of between 0.025 m and 0.20 m (25 mm to 200 mm). See col. 3, line 55 through col. 4, line 9 and examples, which is exemplified at 0.05 m.
As to claim 8, the circulation pipe is provided with a first compressor only (23). Note that compressor (8) is for a different pipe/conduit.
As to claim 9, a method of producing a polyolefin is taught that utilizes the apparatus via polymerizing an olefin monomer in the reactor 1 to produce a polyolefin powder, conveying the powder to a hopper 14, discharging a portion of the gas in a gas chamber/separator 19, which can be passed into the chamber a second time. The powder is discharged from the hopper to a circulation pipe to the separator and through the circulation pipe. See generally abstract, figure 5, col. 4-5 and examples.
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(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,929,180 (herein Chinh).
The discussion with respect to Chinh set-forth above is incorporated herein by reference.
As to claim 6, Chinh is silent on discharge rates of the first compressor compared to the second compressor. However, there are only three options, the rates are the same, or one is higher between the first and second compressor. Moreover, Chinh discloses and suggests that the compression and decompression is ultimately dependent on discharge rates, the reactants and gases, etc. (see figure 5, col. 5, lines 29-65 and examples) and one would have been motivated to optimize these discharge rates in order to adequately flow the reactants and gases throughout the apparatus to achieve optimize pressure. See col. 4-5, wherein the pressure is controlled for optimal polymerization.
Case law has established that it is prima facie obvious to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). MPEP 2143, rationale (E). It is noted thata there are a finite number of recognized solutions in the broader disclosure (the discharge rates of the first and second compressors) which the broader disclosure does not teach away from any and one would have pursued the solutions given that the three options are the only possible options. In light of the discussion above, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to prepare any of the have the first compressor as a higher discharge rate and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Second, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to have modified the discharge rates of the compressor including having a higher discharge rate of the first compressor because one would want to optimize the pressures and discharge rates in order to control the polymerization. See col. 4-5 of Chinh.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK S KAUCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-7340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-6 PM EST.
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, Arrie Lanee Reuther can be reached at (571) 270-7026. 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.
/MARK S KAUCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764