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(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which they depend. Regarding claim 8, the recitation of “wherein: the inert gas is nitrogen” does not impart any particular structure to the reaction device defined in claim 1. Thus, claim 8 fails to further limit the reaction device defined in claim 1 to any particular structure. Regarding claim 9, the recitation of “wherein: the high viscosity resin is a biodegradable resin” merely relates to the material worked upon by the claimed device and does not impart any particular structure to the claimed device. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1, 3, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2020/0254418).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 9, the reference Kim et al. discloses a polymerization reaction device (100) of a high viscosity resin comprising:
a cylindrical reactor (110) having an inlet disposed at an upper part and a discharge port (140) disposed at a lower part; and
an impeller (131, 132) rotatably arranged inside the cylindrical reactor and configured to mix materials in the cylindrical reactor (see paras. [0022]-[0029]; Fig. 2). The reference Kim et al. further teaches that the discharge port should have a cross-sectional diameter sufficiently narrow to ensure that a pressure distribution on a cross section of the reactor is even while a pressuring gas is being applied to the upper part of the reactor in order to discharge the content of the reactor (see para. [0006]). Thus, as no structural distinction is seen between the polymerization reaction device disclosed in the reference Kim et al. and the instantly claimed polymerization reaction device, the polymerization reaction device of Kim et al. is considered capable of performing all the functions recited in claim 1.
In addition, with regard to the claim recitation: wherein the materials are configured to be mixed by the impeller and polymerized into the high viscosity resin, and wherein the high viscosity resin being polymerized is configured to be discharged to an outside of the cylindrical reactor through the discharge port by applying an inert gas, this claim recitation merely relate to the material worked upon by the claimed device and does not impart any particular structural limitation to the claimed reaction device. With regard to the claim recitation: wherein a ratio of a diameter of the discharge port to a diameter of the cylindrical reactor is set such that 80% or more of the high viscosity resin is configured to be discharged from the cylindrical reactor from a first time point, when the applying of the inert gas starts, to a second time point when the inert gas reaches the discharge port, this claim recitation appears to merely relate to the manner of operating the claimed device to obtain a desired result. The examiner notes that the amount of material discharged from the cylindrical reactor is highly dependent on the viscosity of the material in the cylindrical reactor, the temperature of the material at the discharge port, and the pressure applied to the material in the cylindrical reactor. Thus, the discharge amount of the high viscosity resin may not necessarily depend upon the ratio of a diameter of the discharge port to a diameter of the cylindrical reactor.
Regarding claim 3, the reference Kim et al. discloses the polymerization reaction device (100), wherein: the lower part of the cylindrical reactor includes a conical part (111) having a diameter that decreases in a downward direction from an upper region of the conical part toward the discharge port (140), and wherein an angle between a side surface of the conical part and a horizontal plane corresponds to an angle between a surface of the high viscosity resin remaining in the cylindrical reactor and the horizontal plane at the second time point when the inert gas reaches the discharge port (see paras. [0006]; [0024]; Fig. 2).
Claims 1, 3, and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shishido et al.(US 4,022,438).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 9, the reference Shishido et al. discloses a polymerization reaction device of a high viscosity resin (see col. 1, lines 5-10; Fig. 1) comprising:
a cylindrical reactor (1) having an inlet disposed at an upper part and a discharge port (10) disposed at a lower part; and
an impeller (13) rotatably arranged inside the cylindrical reactor and configured to mix materials in the cylindrical reactor (see col. 2, lines 30-57; Fig. 1). Thus, as no structural distinction is seen between the polymerization reaction device disclosed in the reference Shishido et al. and the instantly claimed polymerization reaction device, the polymerization reaction device of Shishido et al. is considered capable of performing all the functions recited in claim 1.
Regarding, claim 3, the reference Shishido et al. discloses the polymerization reaction device, wherein: the lower part of the cylindrical reactor includes a conical part having a diameter that decreases in a downward direction from an upper region of the conical part toward the discharge port (10). With respect to the recitation in the claim, wherein an angle between a side surface of the conical part and a horizontal plane corresponds to an angle between a surface of the high viscosity resin remaining in the cylindrical reactor and the horizontal plane at the second time point when the inert gas reaches the discharge port, the polymerization reaction device disclosed and illustrated in Figure 1 of Shishido et al. can suitably be operated such that an angle between a side surface of the conical part and a horizontal plane corresponds to an angle between a surface of the high viscosity resin remaining in the cylindrical reactor and the horizontal plane at the second time point when the inert gas reaches the discharge port (see col. 2, lines 30-57; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, the reference Shishido et al. discloses the polymerization reaction device, wherein: the impeller comprises: a vertical frame (5) installed in a vertical direction inside the cylindrical reactor (1) and configured to rotate by receiving a rotational power (see col. 2, lines 30-48; Fig. 1); at least one horizontal frame (15) mounted to the vertical frame and extending in a radial direction of the cylindrical reactor (see col. 2, lines 30-48; Fig. 1); at least one blade (13) mounted to the at least one horizontal frame and disposed in a spiral shape to surround the vertical frame (see col. 2, lines 30-48; Fig. 1); and an anchor mounted to a lowermost horizontal frame among the at least one horizontal frame and protruding in the downward direction to a position corresponding to the conical part (see col. 2, lines 30-48; Fig. 1).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2020/0254418).
Regarding claim 2, the reference Kim et al. does not specifically specify wherein the ratio of the diameter of the discharge port to the diameter of the cylindrical reactor is 1/15 or less. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the polymerization reaction device of Kim et al. such that the ratio of the diameter of the discharge port to the diameter of the cylindrical reactor is 1/15 or less as claimed by applicant through a mere routine experimentation and optimization based on the teachings of Kim et al.. The reference Kim et al. teaches that the discharge port should have a sufficiently narrow cross sectional area as compare to the cross sectional area of the cylindrical reactor so as to ensure that a pressure distribution on a cross section of the reactor is even while a pressuring gas is being applied to the upper part of the reactor for emptying of the reactor, and thereby, avoid a problem that only the fluid located at the center part the cylindrical reactor is discharged through the outlet pipe and the fluid near the side wall of the housing is attached to the wall surface and is not discharged (see para. [0006]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Li et al. (CN 2688376 Y).
Regarding claim 4, the reference Kim et al. does not specifically specify wherein: the angle between the side surface of the conical part and the horizontal plane is in a range of 40° to 50°. The reference Li et al. teaches a polymerization reaction device (see Machine Translation, para. [0010]; Fig. 1) comprising: a cylindrical reactor (2) having an inlet disposed at an upper part and a discharge port disposed at a lower part; and an impeller (3) rotatably arranged inside the cylindrical reactor and configured to mix materials in the cylindrical reactor (see paras. [0010]; [0016]; Fig. 1). The reference Li et al. further teaches that the lower part of the cylindrical reactor includes a conical part having a diameter that decreases in a downward direction from an upper region of the conical part toward the discharge port (see para. [0010]; Fig. 1). The reference Li et al. further teaches that the angle between the side surface of the conical part and the horizontal plane should be in a range of 40° to 60° so as to make it easy for materials to be conveyed to the discharge port under the action of gravity (see paras. [0011]; [0013]; Fig. 1). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the reactor of Kim et al. such that the angle between the side surface of the conical part and the horizontal plane is in a range of 40° to 50°, since the reference Li et al. teaches that such a modification helps minimize adhesion of polymers to the reactor wall and makes it easy for materials to be conveyed to the discharge port under the action of gravity (see paras. [0009]; [0011]; [0013]; Fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 6 are 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 claims would be allowable because the prior art of record does not disclose or fairly suggest the feature: wherein: the anchor comprises: a first portion installed at a radially outer end portion of the lowermost horizontal frame and extending obliquely downward so as to correspond to an interior side surface of the conical part; and a second portion installed on the lowermost horizontal frame on a radially inner side of the first portion, the second portion extending downward and being connected to the first portion, as recited in claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lessanework T Seifu whose telephone number is (571)270-3153. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 9:00 am - 6:30 pm; F 9:00 am - 1:00 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, Claire 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.
/LESSANEWORK SEIFU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights