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 10 and 11 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.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation of the apparatus “for performing living anionic polymerization” is directed to an intended use of the apparatus, and it is unclear as to the further structural limitation(s) being recited.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation with respect to a specific block copolymer that “can be synthesized at a yield of 90% of more” is directed to a material to be worked upon by the apparatus in its intended use, and it is unclear as to the structural limitation(s) being recited.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4-6, and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirahara et al. (US 2017/0022300 A1) in view of Peck (US 2009/0255466 A1) and Uenishi et al. (JP 11-347397 A).
Regarding claim 1, Hirahara et al. (see FIG. 1) discloses a polymerization apparatus 10 for performing anionic polymerization, comprising:
a raw material container that contains a raw material (i.e., a first raw material vessel 30a or a second raw material vessel 30b);
a reaction container (i.e., a reactor unit 18) that is connected to the raw material container via a raw material supply pipe (i.e., via a first feed line La or a second feed line Lb) and causes anionic polymerization of the raw material supplied (at paragraph [0118]); and
a switching valve (i.e., a control valve 31a or 31b) that is provided in the raw material supply pipe La, Lb and opens and closes the raw material supply pipe.
Hirahara et al. (at paragraph [0118]) discloses that anionic polymerization is “carried out under a highly-pure inert gas atmosphere that has been created in the apparatus by lowering the moisture content and the oxygen level in the reaction system to exceptionally low levels”.
Hirahara et al., however, fails to disclose,
the raw material supply pipe La, Lb includes a joint portion sealed by using a metal gasket; and
the switching valve 31a, 31b is a gas valve.
As defined by Applicant (see specification, at paragraph [0042]), a “gas valve” means a valve having a high airtightness (low leak rate) suitable for controlling gas or liquid flow.
With respect to i), Peck discloses an apparatus for dispensing and delivering a liquid-phase raw material (i.e., a “liquid delivery” embodiment, see FIG. 1, 5; paragraphs [0178]-[0191]), comprising: a raw material container that contains the raw material (i.e., a standard two-port container; paragraph [0179]); and a raw material supply pipe (i.e., a pipe for conveying the liquid source chemical “out”); wherein, specifically, the raw material supply pipe includes a joint portion (i.e., a connection 250; FIG. 5) sealed by using a metal gasket (i.e., using a metal gasket element of the adapter 220; paragraph [0197]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a joint portion sealed by using a metal gasket in the raw material supply pipe in the apparatus of Hirahara et al. because the joint portion would have provided a reliable seal for preventing the leakage of raw material at a connection between the raw material container and the raw material supply pipe, and the raw material would be maintained at the high purity level required by the intended application, as taught by Peck (see paragraphs [0003], [0010]-[0011]).
With respect to ii), Uenishi et al. discloses a switching valve (i.e., a Y-type globe valve, wherein a gland portion 57 of the valve may be sealed using bellows when leakage of raw material to the outside of the valve is not permitted or when gas outside of the valve is not allowed to be mixed into the inside of the valve; FIG. 5, translation at paragraphs [0094]-[0100], [0115]), wherein valve is provided in a raw material supply pipe of a polymerization apparatus (i.e., in a pipe connected to a polymerization reactor; paragraph [0098]), and the valve opens and closes the raw material supply pipe (paragraph [0095]). Specifically, Uenishi et al. discloses that the switching valve is a gas valve (i.e., the Y-type globe valve has a leakage amount of substantially zero under a vacuum of 40,000 x 10-6 MPa or less, such that the valve would be suitable for gas or liquid flow; see Abstract, paragraph [0090]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further provide the gas valve of Uenishi et al. for the switching valve in the apparatus of Hirahara et al. because the gas valve was substantially leak-free, with a leakage amount of substantially 0 under a vacuum of 40,000 x 10-6 MPa or less, such that a leakage of raw material to the outside of the switching valve, as well as an ingress of external air into the switching valve, would have been substantially prevented, as taught by Uenishi et al. (see translation at paragraphs [0077]-[0079]).
Regarding claim 4, Peck (see FIG. 5) discloses that one end 213 of the raw material supply pipe is joined to the raw material container by welding (paragraph [0199]), and another end 203 of the raw material supply pipe is joined to other process components, for instance, a vessel, by welding (paragraph [0198]). Peck (paragraph [0164]) further discloses that welding joining, while not removable, is desirable in terms of achieving a leak-tight connection. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the raw material supply pipe to the reaction container and the raw material container by welding joining in the modified apparatus of Hirahara et al. because welding joining was a desirable joining technique for creating a leak-tight connection between an end of a supply pipe and a container, as taught by Peck.
Regarding claim 5, Hirahara et al. (FIG. 1) discloses that the apparatus comprises a plurality of the raw material containers 30a,30b; and a plurality of the raw material supply pipes La,Lb respectively connecting the raw material containers and the reaction container 18 (i.e., one end of the first feed line La is connected to the first raw material vessel 30a, while the other end of the first feed line La is connected to the reactor unit 18, see paragraph [0039]; similarly, one end of the second feed line Lb is connected to the second raw material vessel 30b, while the other end of the second feed line Lb is connected to the reaction unit 18).
Hirahara et al. fails to disclose that all of the raw material supply pipes La,Lb include joint portions sealed by a metal gasket and all of the switching valves 31a,31b are gas valves.
The same comments with respect to Peck and Uenishi et al. apply (see claim 1 above).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include joint portions sealed by using metal gaskets in all of the raw material supply pipes in the modified apparatus of Hirahana et al. because the joint portions would have provided reliable seals for preventing the leakage of any of the raw materials at the connections between the raw material containers and the raw material supply pipes, and the raw materials would be maintained at the high purity level required by the intended application, as taught by Peck (at paragraphs [0003], [0010]-[0011]).
It would have also been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the gas valve of Uenishi et al. for all of the switching valves in the modified apparatus of Hirahana et al. because the gas valve was substantially leak-free, with a leakage amount of substantially zero under a vacuum of 40,000 x 10-6 MPa or less, such that a leakage of any of the raw materials to the outside of the valves, as well as an ingress of external air into any of the valves, would have been substantially prevented, as taught by Uenishi et al. (translation at paragraphs [0077]-[0079]).
Furthermore, the duplication of parts to produce a multiplied effect was held to be obvious. See MPEP §2144.04 VI, B.
Regarding claim 6, Peck (FIG. 5) discloses that one end 213 of the raw material supply pipe is joined to the raw material container by welding (paragraph [0199]), and another end 203 of the raw material supply pipe is joined to other process components, e.g., a vessel, by welding (paragraph [0198]). Peck (paragraph [0164]) further discloses that welding joining, while not removable, is desirable in terms of achieving a leak-tight connection. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect all of the raw material supply pipes to the reaction container and the corresponding raw material containers by welding joining in the modified apparatus of Hirahara et al. because welding joining was a desirable joining technique for achieving a leak-tight connection between an end of a material supply pipe and a container, as taught by Peck.
Regarding claim 8, Hirahara et al. (see FIG. 1, 5) further discloses:
a pressure feeding mechanism for feeding the raw material in the raw material container 30a,30b to the raw material supply pipe La,Lb with pressure, including:
a pressurized gas container 50 (see paragraphs [0048]-[0049]) that contains a pressurized gas (i.e., an inert gas under pressure);
a pressurized gas supply pipe (i.e., a gas supply tube 51 connected to branch tubes 55a, 55b) that connects the pressurized gas container 50 and the raw material container 30a,30b;
a valve (i.e., a valve 54, 56a, or 56b) for pressurized gas that opens and closes the pressurized gas supply pipe;
a weighing device (i.e., a mass meter 35a,35b using a load cell; see paragraph [0044]) that measures a weight of the raw material container 30a, 30b; and
a control unit (i.e., a controller 22; see paragraph [0061]) for controlling the operation of the units of the apparatus.
Hirahara et al. (at paragraphs [0072]-[0073]; with emphasis added) further discloses,
“The controller 22a of the continuous reaction apparatus 10a controls operation of a metering pump 32a and the degree of opening of a control valve 31a based on the results of measurement by a flowmeter 38a of the first raw material feeding unit 12a, by feedback control such as PID control. The controller 22a also controls operation of a metering pump 32b and the degree of opening of a control valve 31b based on the results of measurement by a flowmeter 38b of the second raw material feeding unit 14a, by feedback control such as PID control.
By controlling the operation of the units of the first raw material feeding unit 12a and the second raw material feeding unit 14a based on the results of measurement by the flowmeters 38a and 38b, the continuous reaction apparatus 10a can perform such control that results in reduction of fluctuations in flow rates. Although the control is performed based on the results of measurement by the flowmeters 38a and 38b in the embodiment, control of the units of the first raw material feeding unit 12a and the second raw material feeding unit 14a may be performed based on the results of measurement by mass meters 35a and 35b or control of the units of the first raw material feeding unit 12a and the second raw material feeding unit 14a may be performed based on the results of measurement by upstream pressure sensors 36a and 36b and downstream pressure sensors 40a and 40b. In addition, the continuous reaction apparatus 10a may control operation of the pressure regulator unit 16 based on the results of measurement.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the control unit to adjust an opening degree of the valve for pressurized gas based on the weight of the raw material container acquired by the weighing device in the modified apparatus of Hirahara et al. because the control unit can also control the operation of the pressure regulator unit 16, which includes the valve for pressurized gas, based on the results of measurements received from the sensors, including the measurements of the weighing devices 36a,36b, as suggested by Hirahara et al.
Regarding claim 9, Hirahara et al. (see FIG. 1) fails to disclose that:
the pressurized gas supply pipe 51,55a,55b includes a joint portion sealed by using a metal gasket;
the valve 56a,56b for pressurized gas is a gas valve, and
the pressurized gas supply pipe 51,55a,55b is connected to the pressurized gas container 50 and the raw material container 30a,30b by welding joining.
With respect to i) and iii), the same comments with respect to Peck apply (see rejections of claims 1 and 4, above). With respect to ii), the same comments with respect to Uenishi et al. apply (see rejection of claim 1, above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to i) include a joint portion sealed by using a metal gasket in the pressurized gas supply pipe, ii) provide the gas valve of Uenishi et al. for the valve for pressurized gas, and iii) connect the pressurized gas supply pipe to the pressurized gas container and the raw material container by welding joining in the modified apparatus of Hirahara et al. because i) a joint portion sealed by using a metal gasket would have achieved a reliable seal for preventing the leakage of pressurized gas at a connection between the pressurized gas container and the raw material container, as taught by Peck (see paragraphs [0003], [0010]-[0011]); ii) the gas valve was substantially leak-free, such that a leakage of pressurized gas to the outside of the valve, as well as an ingress of external air into the valve, would have been substantially prevented, as taught by Uenishi et al. (see translation at paragraphs [0077]-[0079]); and iii) welding joining was a desirable joining teaching for achieving a leak-tight connection between an end of a supply pipe and a container, as taught by Peck.
Regarding claim 10, the further limitation of the polymerization apparatus “for performing living anionic polymerization” is directed to an intended use of the apparatus that does not impart further structural limitation to the claim. See MPEP § 2114. In any event, Hirahara et al. discloses that the polymerization apparatus 10 can be used for performing living anionic polymerization (see paragraph [0098]).
Regarding claim 11, the further limitation with respect to the specific block copolymer that can be synthesized at a yield of 90% or more using the polymerization apparatus is directed a material to be worked upon by the apparatus during its intended use, which does not impart further structural limitation to the apparatus claim. See MPEP § 2115.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirahara et al. (US 2017/0022300 A1) in view of Peck (US 2009/0255466 A1) and Uenishi et al. (JP 11-347397 A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jones et al. (US 4,911,411 A).
Uenishi et al. discloses that the gas valve has a leakage amount of substantially 0 under a vacuum of 40,000 x 10-6 MPa or less (see Abstract, paragraph [0090]). Uenishi et al. also discloses that, during a helium leakage test, the gas valve had a leak rate of about 3 x 10-5 ACC/s or less (see paragraph [0121]-[0122]; ACC/s = std cm3/s).
Uenishi et al. fails to disclose a leak rate of 4 x 10-9 std cm3/s or less.
Jones et al., however, discloses a gas valve (see FIG. 1, column 2, line 63, to column 3, line 31), wherein the gas valve has a leak rate of 4 x 10-9 std cm3/s or less (i.e., a leak rate of less than 10-13 sccm/s; see Abstract, column 1, lines 23-25; sccm/s = std cm3/s).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the gas valve of Jones et al. for the switching valve in the modified apparatus of Hirahara et al. because the extremely low leakage rate of the valve, at less than 10-13 sccm/s, would have even further prevented any contaminants from being introduced into the system, as taught by Jones et al. (see column 1, lines 7-17).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirahara et al. (US 2017/0022300 A1) in view of Peck (US 2009/0255466 A1) and Uenishi et al. (JP 11-347397 A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hiss (EP 1908998 A1).
Peck fails to disclose that the joint portion has a leak rate of 4 x 10-11 std cm3/s or less.
Hiss (see FIG. 2; translation, at the underlined portions) discloses a joint portion (i.e., a sealing arrangement between two sealing flanges 7 of respective pipes) sealed by using a metal gasket (i.e., a metal seal 6 made of tin, lead, indium, gold, copper, aluminum, cold deformable alloys thereof or other soft metal alloys, having a Mohs hardness between 1 and 3, preferably between 2 and 3); wherein, specifically, the joint portion has a leak rate of 4 x 10-11 std cm3/s or less (i.e., the sealing arrangement using metal seal 6 is able to achieve leak rate values below the reliable detection limit of 10-11 mb l s-1 of a commercial leak detector, for instance, helium leak rates of between 10-6 mbar l s-1 and 10-13 mbar l s-1, preferably between 10-9 mbar l s-1 and 10-12 mbar l s-1, and very preferably at most 10 -11 mbar l s-1; for unit conversion, 1 atm cc/s (or std cm3/s) = 0.986923 mbar l/s, such that 4 x 10-11 std cm3/s = approx. 3.95 x 10-11 mbar l/s).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the joint portion to have a leak rate of 4 x 10-11 std cm3/s or less by using the metal seal of Hiss in the modified apparatus of Hirahana et al. because the joint portion would have provided a substantial reduction of the diffusion of foreign matter through the joint portion and achieved excellent air tightness with its very small helium leak rate of, preferably, at most 10 -11 mbar l s-1, as taught by Hiss.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirahara et al. (US 2017/0022300 A1) in view of Peck (US 2009/0255466 A1), Hiss (EP 1908998 A1), Uenishi et al. (JP 11-347397 A), and Jones et al. (US 4,911,411 A).
Hirahara et al. (see FIG. 1) discloses a polymerization apparatus 10 for performing anionic polymerization, comprising:
a raw material container that contains a raw material (i.e., a first raw material vessel 30a or a second raw material vessel 30b);
a reaction container (i.e., a reactor unit 18) that is connected to the raw material container via a raw material supply pipe (i.e., via a pipe of a first feed line La or a second feed line Lb) and causes anionic polymerization of the raw material supplied (paragraph [0118]); and
a switching valve (i.e., a control valve 31a or 31b) that is provided in the raw material supply pipe La, Lb and opens and closes the raw material supply pipe.
Hirahara et al. (at paragraph [0118]) discloses that anionic polymerization is “carried out under a highly-pure inert gas atmosphere that has been created in the apparatus by lowering the moisture content and the oxygen level in the reaction system to exceptionally low levels”.
Hirahara et al., however, fails to disclose,
the raw material supply pipe La, Lb includes a joint portion having a leak rate of 4 x 10-11 std cm3/s or less; and
the switching valve 31a, 31b has a leak rate of 4 x 10-9 std cm3/s or less.
With respect to i), Peck discloses an apparatus for dispensing and delivering a liquid-phase raw material (i.e., a “liquid delivery” embodiment, see FIG. 1, 5; paragraphs [0178]-[0191]), comprising: a raw material container that contains the raw material (i.e., a standard two-port container; paragraphs [0179]); and a raw material supply pipe (i.e., a pipe conveying liquid source chemical “out”); wherein, specifically, the raw material supply pipe includes a joint portion (i.e., a connection 250; FIG. 5) sealed by using a metal gasket (i.e., a metal gasket element of an adapter 220; paragraph [0197]).
In addition, Hiss (see FIG. 2; translation, at underlined portions) discloses a joint portion (i.e., a sealing arrangement between two sealing flanges 7 of respective pipes) sealed by using a metal gasket (i.e., a metal seal 6 made of tin, lead, indium, gold, copper, aluminum, cold deformable alloys thereof or other soft metal alloys, having a Mohs hardness between 1 and 3, preferably between 2 and 3); wherein, specifically, the joint portion has a leak rate of 4 x 10-11 std cm3/s or less (i.e., the sealing arrangement using the metal seal 6 is able to achieve leak rate values below the reliable detection limit of 10-11 mb l s-1 of a commercial leak detector, including helium leak rates of between 10-6 mbar l s-1 and 10-13 mbar l s-1, preferably between 10-9 mbar l s-1 and 10-12 mbar l s-1, and very preferably at most 10 -11 mbar l s-1; for unit conversion, std cm3/s = atm cc/s, and 1 atm cc/s = 0.986923 mbar l/s, such that 4 x 10-11 std cm3/s equals approximately 3.95 x 10-11 mbar l/s).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include i) a joint portion having a leak rate of 4 x 10-11 std cm3/s or less, as taught by the combined teachings of Peck and Hiss, in the raw material supply pipe in the polymerization apparatus of Hirahara et al. because a joint portion sealed by using a metal gasket would form a reliable seal for preventing the leakage of raw material at a connection between the raw material container and the raw material supply pipe, as taught by Peck (see paragraphs [0003], [0010]-[0011]), and the joint portion, when sealed by a metal gasket specifically made of tin, lead, indium, gold, copper, aluminum, cold deformable alloys thereof or other soft metal alloys having a Mohs hardness between 1 and 3, and preferably between 2 and 3, would provide a substantial reduction of the diffusion of foreign matter through the joint portion and achieved a very high level of air-tightness, with a leak rate of, preferably, at most 10 -11 mbar l s-1, as taught by Hiss.
With respect to ii), Uenishi et al. discloses a switching valve (i.e., a Y-type globe valve, wherein a gland portion 57 of the valve may be sealed using bellows when leakage of raw material to the outside of the valve is not permitted or when gas outside of the valve is not allowed to be mixed into the inside of the valve; see FIG. 5, translation at paragraphs [0094]-[0100], [0115]), wherein valve is provided in a raw material supply pipe of a polymerization apparatus (i.e., in a pipe connected to a polymerization reactor; see paragraph [0098]), and the valve opens and closes the raw material supply pipe (see paragraph [0095]). Specifically, Uenishi et al. discloses that the switching valve is a gas valve (i.e., the Y-type globe valve has a leakage amount of substantially 0 under a vacuum of 40,000 x 10-6 MPa or less, such that the valve would be suitable for gas or liquid flow; see Abstract, paragraph [0090]).
In addition, Jones et al. discloses a switching valve (FIG. 1, column 2, line 63, to column 3, line 31), wherein the valve has a leak rate of 4 x 10-9 std cm3/s or less (i.e., a leak rate of less than 10-13 sccm/s, see Abstract, column 1, lines 23-25; sccm/s = std cm3/s).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to ii) further provide a valve having a leak rate of 4 x 10-9 std cm3/s or less, as taught by the combined teachings of Uenishi et al. and Jones, for the switching valve in the polymerization apparatus of Hirahara et al. because the provision of a switching valve having a leakage amount of substantially zero would have substantially prevented the leakage of raw material to the outside of the valve as well as an ingress of external air into the valve, as taught by Uenishi et al. (translation at paragraphs [0077]-[0079]), and furthermore, the provision of the switching valve with an extremely low leakage rate at less than 10-13 sccm/s would have even further prevented contaminants from being introduced into the system, as taught by Jones et al. (see column 1, lines 7-17).
Claims 1, 4-6, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malanga (US 4,748,222 A) in view of Peck (US 2009/0255466 A1) and Uenishi et al. (JP H11-347397 A).
Regarding claim 1, Malanga (see FIG. 1; column 6, line 63, to column 7, line 33) discloses a polymerization apparatus for performing anionic polymerization, comprising:
a raw material container that contains a raw material (i.e., a container 8 for containing an initiator; a container 18 for containing an initiator activator; or a container (inherent, not shown) for containing one of a vinyl aromatic monomer, α-methyl styrene, or a diluent);
a reaction container (i.e., a reactor 1) connected to the raw material container via a raw material supply pipe (i.e., via pipe 7, 10, 12, 19, etc.), wherein the reaction container causes an anionic polymerization of the raw material supplied (see Abstract; column 2, lines 23-31); and
a switching valve (i.e., a valve 6, 13, 14, 15, 17 or 20) provided in the raw material supply pipe for opening and closing the raw material supply pipe.
Malanga (see column 2, lines 45-47) further discloses, “As in any anionic polymerization, initiator, diluent and monomer purity are highly critical to successful polymerization”.
Malanga (see column 6, lines 47-63) further discloses that contamination should be avoided during the process to prevent a degradation in the properties of the polymer.
Malanga, however, fails to further disclose,
the raw material supply pipe includes a joint portion sealed by using a metal gasket; and
the switching valve is a “gas valve”.
As defined by Applicant (see specification, paragraph [0042]), a “gas valve” means a valve having a high airtightness (low leak rate) suitable for controlling gas or liquid flow.
With respect to i), Peck discloses an apparatus for dispensing and delivering a liquid-phase raw material (i.e., a “liquid delivery” embodiment, see FIG. 1, 5; see also paragraphs [0178]-[0191]), comprising: a raw material container that contains the raw material (i.e., a standard two-port container comprising a vessel that forms an internal vessel compartment to hold a liquid source chemical; see paragraphs [0179]); and a raw material supply pipe (i.e., a pipe for conveying the liquid source chemical “out”); wherein, specifically, the raw material supply pipe includes a joint portion (i.e., a connection 250; FIG. 5) sealed by using a metal gasket (i.e., a metal gasket element of an adapter 220; paragraph [0197]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include i) a joint portion sealed by using a metal gasket in the raw material supply pipe in the polymerization apparatus of Malanga because the joint portion would have achieved a reliable seal for preventing the leakage of raw material at a connection between the raw material container and the raw material supply pipe, and the raw material would be maintained at the high purity level required by the intended application, as taught by Peck (see paragraphs [0003], [0010]-[0011]).
With respect to ii), Uenishi et al. discloses a switching valve (i.e., a Y-type globe valve, wherein a gland portion 57 of the valve may be sealed using bellows when leakage of raw material to the outside of the valve is not permitted or when gas outside of the valve is not allowed to be mixed into the inside of the valve; see FIG. 5, translation at paragraphs [0094]-[0100], [0115]), wherein valve is provided in a raw material supply pipe of a polymerization apparatus (i.e., in a pipe connected to a polymerization reactor; see paragraph [0098]), and the valve opens and closes the raw material supply pipe (see paragraph [0095]). Specifically, Uenishi et al. discloses that the switching valve is a gas valve (i.e., the Y-type globe valve has a leakage amount of substantially zero under a vacuum of 40,000 x 10-6 MPa or less, such that the valve would be suitable for gas or liquid flow; see Abstract, paragraph [0090]).
It would have also been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to ii) provide the gas valve of Uenishi et al. for the switching valve in the polymerization apparatus of Malanga because the gas valve was substantially leak-free, with a leakage amount of substantially zero under a vacuum of 40,000 x 10-6 MPa or less, such that a leakage of raw material to the outside of the valve as well as an ingress of external air into the valve would have been substantially prevented, as taught by Uenishi et al. (see translation at paragraphs [0077]-[0079]).
Regarding claim 4, Peck (FIG. 5) discloses that one end 213 of the raw material supply pipe is joined to the raw material container by welding (paragraph [0199]), and another end 203 of the raw material supply pipe is joined to other process components, for instance, a vessel, by welding (paragraph [0198]). Peck (paragraph [0164]) further discloses that welding joining, while not removable, is desirable in terms of achieving a leak-tight connection. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the raw material supply pipe to the reaction container and the raw material container by welding joining in the modified apparatus of Hirahara et al. because welding joining was a suitable joining teaching for creating a leak-tight connection between an end of a raw material supply pipe and a container, as taught by Peck.
Regarding claim 5, Malanga (see FIG. 1) discloses that the apparatus comprises:
a plurality of the raw material containers (i.e., the container 8 for containing an initiator; the container 18 for containing an initiator activator; and the containers (inherent, not shown) for respectively containing the vinyl aromatic monomer, α-methyl styrene, and diluent); and
a plurality of the raw material supply pipes (i.e., pipes 7, 10, 12, 19, etc.) respectively connecting the plurality of the raw material containers to the reaction container 1.
Malanga fails to disclose that i) all of the raw material supply pipes include joint portions sealed by using a metal gasket and ii) all of the switching valves 6,13,14,15,17,20 are gas valves.
The same comments with respect to Peck and Uenishi et al. apply (see claim 1 above).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include i) joint portions sealed by using metal gaskets in all of the raw material supply pipes in the modified apparatus of Malanga because the joint portions would have provided reliable seals for preventing the leakage of any of the raw materials at the connections between the raw material containers and the raw material supply pipes, and the raw materials would be maintained at the high purity level required by the intended application, as taught by Peck (at paragraphs [0003], [0010]-[0011]).
It would have also been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to ii) provide the gas valve of Uenishi et al. for all of the switching valves in the modified apparatus of Malanga because the gas valve was substantially leak-free, with a leakage amount of substantially zero under a vacuum of 40,000 x 10-6 MPa or less, such that a leakage of any of the raw materials to the outside of the valves, as well as an ingress of external air into any of the valves, would have been substantially prevented, as taught by Uenishi et al. (translation at paragraphs [0077]-[0079]).
Furthermore, the duplication of parts to produce a multiplied effect was held to be obvious. See MPEP §2144.04 VI, B.
Regarding claim 6, Peck (FIG. 5) discloses that an end 213 of the raw material supply pipe is joined to the raw material container by welding (paragraph [0199]), and another end 203 of the raw material supply pipe is joined to other process components, for instance, a vessel, by welding (paragraph [0198]). Peck (see paragraph [0164]) further discloses that welding, while not removable, is desirable for achieving a leak-tight connection. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect all of the raw material supply pipes to the reaction container and the corresponding raw material containers by welding joining in the modified apparatus of Malanga because welding joining was a suitable joining technique for achieving a leak-tight connection between an end of a raw material supply pipe and a container, as taught by Peck.
Regarding claim 10, the further limitation of the polymerization apparatus “for performing living anionic polymerization” is directed to an intended use of the apparatus that does not impart further structural limitation to the apparatus claim. See MPEP § 2114. In any event, Malanga discloses that the polymerization apparatus is used to perform anionic polymerization (see Abstract; column 2, lines 23-31).
Regarding claim 11, the further limitation of a specific block copolymer that can be synthesized by the polymerization apparatus is directed a material to be worked upon by the apparatus during its intended use, which does not impart further structural limitation to the apparatus claim. See MPEP § 2115.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malanga (US 4,748,222 A) in view of Peck (US 2009/0255466 A1) and Uenishi et al. (JP H11-347397 A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schöb (US 2017/0312713 A1).
Malanga (see FIG. 1; column 7, lines 29-33) discloses a stirring mechanism that stirs the raw material supplied to the reaction container 1; wherein the stirring mechanism includes a stirring blade (i.e., a blade of an impeller 5) accommodated in the reaction container 1, and a drive mechanism (i.e., a drive mechanism 4 associated with the impeller 5) disposed outside the reaction container 1 for rotating the stirring blade. Malanga, however, fails to disclose that the drive mechanism 4 rotates the stirring blade with magnetic force.
Schöb discloses a mixing apparatus (FIG. 7) comprising: a mixing tank 2 and a stirring mechanism including a stirring blade accommodated in the mixing tank (i.e., a rotor 3 coupled to a bar 8 having an attached vane 6 for mixing or stirring substances in the tank 2); and, specifically, a drive mechanism (i.e., a stator 4) disposed outside of the mixing tank, wherein the drive mechanism rotates the stirring blade with magnetic force (i.e., the rotor 3 comprises a magnetically effective core 31 that interacts with the stator 4 via magnetic fields generated by coil cores 41 that carry coils or winding 42, such that the stator 4 contactlessly and magnetically rotates the rotor 3 in operation; see paragraphs [0057]-[0063]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the drive mechanism to rotate the stirring blade with magnetic force in the modified apparatus of Malanga because the stirring mechanism could then be contactlessly and magnetically driven by the drive mechanism, and since no mechanical bearings or leadthroughs into the container would be required, a purity of the materials would be ensured, as the introduction of impurities or contaminants by a connection between the stirring mechanism and the drive mechanism would be avoided, as taught by Schöb (see paragraphs [0004]-[0005]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: NIST “Pressure and Gas Flow Unit Conversions” was cited to show the unit conversions for gas flow, where 1 atm cc/s = 0.986923 mbar l/s.
* * *
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER A LEUNG whose telephone number is (571)272-1449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 AM - 4:30 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, CLAIRE X 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.
/JENNIFER A LEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights