DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
This action is responsive to national-stage application filed 06/06/2023. Following entry of the concurrently filed preliminary amendment, amended claims 1-15 and new claims 16-20 are currently pending and under examination.
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 . However, in the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for a rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Information Disclosure Statement(s)
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) filed on 09/17/2023, 02/19/2024, 09/24/2024, 11/11/2024 and 07/28/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609, and therefore the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits. Initialed copies of the IDS are included with the mailing/transmittal of this Office action.
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Objection – Claims
Claims 14/15 are objected to because of the following informalities: referring to claim 14, final line, “a” should be amended to –the-- to remove any doubt that the “set of bars” recited in process step (c) corresponds to that recited as reactor element (iii) in parent claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Common Ownership Notice
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.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Garcia-Mallol et al (US 4419965) (hereinafter, ‘Garcia-Mallol’).
Regarding Claim 13, Garcia-Mallol has already disclosed (see in particular FIG. 3 and col. 3, line 31 et seq.) a bar (multiple sparger pipes 52) for introducing a fluid into a fluidized bed chamber, the bar comprising (a) a hollow space along the length of the bar for conveying the fluid within the bar, (b) having a curved, and thus particle deviating, top, for preventing accumulation of particles on the bar, and (c) having a multiplicity of openings for distributing the fluid being arranged along the bottom half of the bar. As such, Garcia-Mallol is seen to fully disclose in combination all the requisite structural features recited in independent claim 13. Further, while it is noted that claim 13 additionally includes recitations directed to intended manners of using the claimed apparatus or to the contents thereof during an intended operation, such recitations are not germane to the patentability of the apparatus itself. In particular, the reference in claim 13 (at lines 1-2) to introducing feedstock or a barrier stream into a (MZCR) does not expressly or impliedly require any structure in addition to that described in Garcia-Mallol. Thus, the disclosed sparger pipes possess the structural elements of the Applicant’s bar as claimed, any difference resides in the manner in which the bar is to be used, and the manner in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself. See, MPEP 2115 and In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 7, 10-12, 14, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Govoni et al (EP 1012195 B1) (hereinafter, ‘Govoni’) in view of Garcia-Mallol’.
Regarding Claim 1, Govoni has already disclosed a reactor for carrying out a gas-phase polymerization in the presence of a polymerization catalyst, comprising:
(i) a first polymerization zone (1) adapted and arranged for growing polymer
particles to flow upward under fast fluidization or transport conditions (¶ [0015] and Fig. 1: 1),
(ii) a second polymerization zone (2) adapted and arranged for the growing polymer
particles to flow downward (¶¶ [0017], [0022], Fig. 1: 2); and
(iii) inlets (15, 16, 17) for introducing feedstock or a barrier stream into the second polymerization zone (2) (¶¶ [0031]-[0032], Fig. 1:15-17).
Govoni differs from the claimed subject matter in that Govoni fail to disclose:
(iii) a set of bars for introducing feedstock or a barrier stream into the second polymerization zone,
wherein each bar comprises
(a) a hollow space along the length of the bar (4) for conveying the feedstock or barrier stream within the bar,
(b) a particle deviating top for preventing accumulation of the polymer particles on the bars, and
(c) a multiplicity of openings for distributing the feedstock or the barrier stream,
wherein the openings being arranged along the bottom half of the periphery of the bar.
However, in an analogous technical field, Garcia-Mallol teaches (see in particular FIG. 3 and col. 3, line 31 et seq.) multiple sparger pipes 52 for introducing a fluid into a fluidized bed chamber; wherein the pipes 52 are considered as equivalent to a “set of bars” as claimed. Garcia-Mallol specifically teaches that the pipes 52 each comprise (a) a hollow space along the length of the bar for conveying the fluid within the pipes 52, (b) having a curved (and thus particle deviating) top, for preventing accumulation of particles on the pipes 52, and (c) having a multiplicity of openings for distributing the fluid being arranged along the bottom half of the pipes 52. Thus, the very same bar means as claimed herein is taught by Garcia-Mallol not only as suitable for introduction of a fluid corresponding into a vessel but the element 24 is used to inject a flowing gas in a descending flow of particles entrained in a gas phase, and enabling the circulation, thus preventing agglomeration and deposits of said particles (col. 1, lines 45-48). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the reactor of Govoni by utilizing a set of multiple sparger pipes as per Garcia-Mallol to introduce feedstock or a barrier stream into the second polymerization zone (2) via inlets (15, 16, 17) as a combination or juxtaposition of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claims 7 and 12, Govoni in view of Garcia-Mallol render obvious the reactor according to claim 1 as discussed above. Although neither reference directly teaches the respective parameters claimed, such parameters are nonetheless considered conventional expedients the selection of which results from the application of standard engineering techniques for dimensioning and designing reactor apparatus, and which fail to provide any additional effect other than what would have been expected by one of ordinary skilled in the art. Indeed, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, see In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Especially in the absence of objective evidence of criticality in operating within such claimed ranges.
Regarding Claim 10, Govoni in view of Garcia-Mallol render obvious the reactor according to claim 1 as discussed above. Garcia-Mallol further teaches a set of supports for supporting the bars (col. 3, 32-35 and Fig. 3: header 54 is taken as implicitly serving to support the multiple sparger pipes 52 as well as feeding fluidizing gas thereinto).
Regarding Claim 11, Govoni in view of Garcia-Mallol render obvious the reactor according to claim 1 as discussed above. Neither reference directly teaches wherein an end of the bars is adapted to be form-fittingly connected to the wall of the second polymerization zone. However, as a conventional practical expedient one of ordinary skill in the art, when adapting the reactor of Govoni to include multiple sparger pipes as per Garcia-Mallol, would have logically been expected to ensure the ends of the pipes connect to the wall of polymerization zone (2) in a form-fitting manner so as to avoid leakage of reaction gas around the periphery of the pipe sections extending into the zone. Thus, on the basis of common knowledge and common sense, see In re Bozek, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify Govoni such that an end of the multiple sparger pipe(s) of Garcia-Mallol is adapted to be form-fittingly connected to the wall of the second polymerization zone, as claimed.
Regarding Claim 14, Govoni in view of Garcia-Mallol render obvious the reactor according to claim 1 as discussed above. Govoni further discloses to a process for carrying out a gas-phase olefin polymerization at temperatures from 20°C to 200°C and pressures from 0.5 MPa to 10 MPa in the presence of a polymerization catalyst in the reactor (Examples 1 to 11), comprising the steps of:
(i) feeding one or more olefins into the reactor (¶ [0022], Fig. 1: 12),
(ii) contacting the olefins and the catalyst under reaction conditions in the at least first
polymerization zone and the at least second polymerization zone (¶¶ [0023]-[0025]), and
(iii) collecting the polymer product from the second polymerization zone,
wherein
(a) the growing polymer particles flow upward through the first polymerization zone under fast fluidization or transport conditions (¶ [0023]), leave the first polymerization zone, enter the second polymerization zone, flow downward under the action of gravity, leave the second polymerization zone, (2) and are at least partially reintroduced into the first polymerization zone, thereby circulating the growing polymer particles between the first polymerization zone the second polymerization zone ( [0035]),
(b) the second polymerization zone comprises a bed of densified polymer
Particles (¶ [0007]), and
(c) feedstock or a barrier stream is introduced into the second polymerization zone through a set of bars (Govoni, Fig. 1: inlets (15, 16, 17) as adapted to incorporate multiple sparger pipes of Garcia-Mallol).
Regarding Claim 18, Govoni in view of Garcia-Mallol render obvious the reactor according to claim 1 as discussed above. Neither reference directly teaches wherein more than one set of bars are provided and arranged on top of each other. Nevertheless, this claimed feature constitutes a duplication of the set of bars recited in parent claim 1, and therefore is not patentable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to duplicate the multiple sparger pipes of Garcia-Mallol when modifying the reactor of Govoni as discussed above, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding Claim 20, Govoni in view of Garcia-Mallol render obvious the reactor according to claim 1 as discussed above, and the proposed modification of Govoni would inevitably result in the bars (as sparger pipes 52 of Garcia-Mallol) being attached to a first side of the second polymerization zone of Govoni (through inlets (15, 16, 17)) and extending into the second polymerization zone towards the
side opposite the first side, in much the same manner as said sparger pipes 52 are attached to a first side of fluidized bed chamber 48 in Garcia-Mallol and extend into the chamber towards the side opposite the first (entry) side.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6, 8-9, 15-17 and 19 are objected to as being dependent on a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim.
The closest prior art to Govoni et al and Garcia-Mallol et al, discussed above, does not describe the inventions of instant claims 2-6, 8-9, 15-17 and 19, or provide proper rationale to modify either of their respective inventions into the invention of any of said claims.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Examiner F. M. Teskin whose telephone number is (571) 272-1116. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Robert Jones, can be reached at (571) 270-7733. The appropriate fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/FRED M TESKIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
/FMTeskin/01-10-26