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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a rotation mechanism that rotates the circular ring around a vertical axis in claim 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-4, 7-9, 11-14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hideki et al. (JP 2008-120883).
Regarding claim 1, the reference Hideki et al. discloses an olefin polymerization reactor (10) (see Machine Translation, paras. [0041]; [0042]; Figs. 1-2) comprising:
a tubular powder container (10) forming a moving bed (MB) in which powder moves downward by gravity, and including a plurality of intermediate openings (i.e., the gaps between elements 20 and 12) provided spaced apart from each other in a vertical direction (see, paras. [0106]; [0108]; Figs. 1 and 2);
a gas container (12) that accommodates gas discharged from the plurality of intermediate openings (see paras. [0052]; [0054]; Figs. 1 and 2);
a powder feed pipe (L5) that feeds, to an upper portion of the tubular powder container, polyolefin powder or slurry containing polyolefin powder and olefin monomer liquid (see para. [0055]; Fig. 1);
a liquid feed pipe (L20) that feeds olefin monomer liquid to an inside of the tubular powder container (see para. [0053]; Fig. 1); and
a gas discharge pipe (L40) that discharges olefin monomer gas from the gas container to outside (see para. [0052]; [0054]; Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 2, the reference Hideki et al. discloses the olefin polymerization reactor, wherein the tubular powder container (12) includes a plurality of unit tubes (30, 12) disposed side by side in the vertical direction, an axial direction of each of the unit tubes (30, 12) is disposed along the vertical direction, and the intermediate openings (i.e., the gap between elements 20 and 12) are formed between the unit tubes (30, 12) (see paras. [0106]; [0108]; Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 3, the reference Hideki et al. discloses the olefin polymerization, wherein each of the unit tubes (30, 12) is a tapered tube of which outer diameter and inner diameter decrease downward (see para. [0042]; [0046]; Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 4, the reference Hideki et al. discloses the olefin polymerization, wherein, in each pair of unit tubes (30, 12) adjacent to each other in the vertical direction, an upper end (20a) of a lower unit tube (30, 12) is set higher in position than a lower end (30b) of an upper unit tube (30, 12) (see para. [0115]; Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, the reference Hideki et al. discloses the olefin polymerization reactor, wherein each of the unit tubes (30, 12) is disposed such that a lower portion (30b) of inner surface of each of the unit tubes is in contact with the moving bed (MB) and an upper portion of the inner surface of each of the unit tubes (30, 12) is not in contact with the moving bed (see para. [0054]; Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 8, the reference Hideki et al. discloses the olefin polymerization reactor, wherein the liquid feed pipe (L20) includes a plurality of outlet openings (50) spaced apart from each other in the vertical direction in the tubular powder container (10) (see para. [0053]; Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 9, the reference Hideki et al. discloses the olefin polymerization reactor, wherein the liquid feed pipe (L20) includes a main pipe (L20) extending in the vertical direction and a plurality of branch pipes branching from the main pipe (see para. [0053]; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, the reference Hideki et al. discloses the olefin polymerization reactor, wherein the main pipe (L20) is provided with a plurality of outlet openings (see para. [0053]; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, the reference Hideki et al. discloses the olefin polymerization reactor, wherein a plurality of the liquid feed pipes is provided in the tubular powder container (10) so as to be spaced apart from each other in the vertical direction, and an olefin monomer liquid feed line (L20) is connected to each of the liquid feed pipes (see para. [0053]; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, the reference Hideki et al. discloses the olefin polymerization reactor, further comprising a hopper (65) that receives powder discharged from a lower-end opening of the tubular powder container (see para. [0056]; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, the reference Hideki et al. discloses the olefin polymerization reactor, further comprising a baffle (20) for making a shape of a lower-end opening of the tubular powder container annular (see paras. [0049]; [0050]; Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 17, the reference Hideki et al. discloses a method for producing polyolefin using the olefin polymerization reactor (see paras. [0105]; [0113]; Figs. 1 and 2).
Claims 1-3, 7, 14, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ogawa et al. (US 7,834,108).
Regarding claim 1, the reference et al. discloses an olefin polymerization reactor (10A) (see col. 7, lines 15-27; Fig. 4) comprising:
a tubular powder container (12) forming a moving bed in which powder moves downward by gravity (see col. 19, lines 9-30; Fig. 4), and including a plurality of intermediate openings (i.e., the gaps between elements 20 and 12) provided spaced apart from each other in a vertical direction (see, col. 7, lines 43-57; Figs. 4 and 5);
a gas container (12) that accommodates gas discharged from the plurality of intermediate openings (see, col. 7, lines 43-57; Figs. 4 and 5);
a powder feed pipe (L5) that feeds, to an upper portion of the tubular powder container, polyolefin powder or slurry containing polyolefin powder and olefin monomer liquid (see col. 9, lines 48-52; Fig. 4);
a liquid feed pipe (L20) that feeds olefin monomer liquid to an inside of the tubular powder container (see col. 9, lines 20-28; Fig. 4); and
a gas discharge pipe (L40) that discharges olefin monomer gas from the gas container to outside (see col. 9, lines 29-35; Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 2, the reference Ogawa et al. discloses the olefin polymerization reactor, wherein the tubular powder container (12) includes a plurality of unit tubes (30, 12) disposed side by side in the vertical direction, an axial direction of each of the unit tubes (30, 12) is disposed along the vertical direction, and the intermediate openings (i.e., the gap between elements 20 and 12) are formed between the unit tubes (30, 12) (see col. 7, lines 58-65; Figs. 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 3, the reference Ogawa et al. discloses the olefin polymerization reactor, wherein each of the unit tubes (30, 12) is a tapered tube of which outer diameter and inner diameter decrease downward (see col. 7, lines 58-65; Figs. 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 7, the reference Ogawa et al. discloses the olefin polymerization reactor, wherein each of the unit tubes (30, 12) is disposed such that a lower portion (30b) of inner surface of each of the unit tubes is in contact with the moving bed and an upper portion of the inner surface of each of the unit tubes (30, 12) is not in contact with the moving bed (see col. 7, lines 43-57; Figs. 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 14, the reference Ogawa et al. discloses the olefin polymerization reactor, further comprising a baffle (20) for making a shape of a lower-end opening of the tubular powder container annular (see col. 7, lines 43-57; Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 16, the reference Ogawa et al. discloses a polyolefin production system comprising: the olefin polymerization reactor (10A) (see col. 7, lines 15-27; Fig. 4) ; a condenser (63-66) that condenses gas discharged from the gas discharge pipe (l40) to obtain olefin monomer liquid; and a pump (52) that feeds olefin monomer liquid obtained by the condenser to the liquid feed pipe (L20) (see col. 9, lines 12-28; Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 17, the reference Ogawa et al. discloses a method for producing polyolefin using the olefin polymerization reactor (see col. 19, lines 1-30; Fig. 4).
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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hideki et al. as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Penick (US 4,705,621).
Regarding claim 10, the reference Hideki et al. is silent with respect to the branch pipes extending obliquely downward from the main pipe. The reference Penick teaches a catalytic reactor (10, 110) wherein a liquid phase is treated with a gaseous reactant in the presence of a fixed porous catalyst bed (15, 115), which is arranged in a sloped configuration within the catalytic reactor (10, 115) (see col. 1, lines 6-12; col. 2, lines 3-30; Figs. 1-2). The reference Penick further teaches that the catalytic reactor (10, 110) includes a liquid distributor means for distributing the liquid feed across a sloped surface of the catalyst bed (15, 115) (see col. 2, lines 7-21; Figs. 1-2). The reference Penick teaches that the liquid distributor means may include a main liquid feed pipe (12, 112) extending in the vertical direction and a plurality of branch pipes (20, 120) branching from the main pipe (12, 112), and wherein the branch pipes (20, 120) extend obliquely downward from the main pipe (see col. 2, lines 50-60; col. 5, lines 7-11; Figs. 1-2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in view of the teachings of Penick, to modify the liquid feed pipe of Hideki et al. to include branch pipes extend obliquely downward from the main pipe as taught by Penick, and claimed by applicant, so as to facilitate uniform distribution of liquid across a sloped surface of the moving bed within the polymerization reactor Hideki et al., since the reference Penick teaches that such a modification advantageously allows for uniformly applying a liquid feed across a sloped surface of a porous catalyst bed (see col. 2, lines 7-21; Figs. 1-2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, and 15 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.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, the claims would be allowable because the prior art of record does not disclose or fairly suggest the feature: wherein each of the unit tubes is formed by a part of inner surface of the tubular powder container, and a partition plate disposed in the tubular powder container and horizontally partitioning an inside of the tubular powder container, and between each pair of unit tubes adjacent to each other in the vertical direction, a partition plate of a lower unit tube is disposed away from a partition plate of an upper unit tube in an outward direction of the upper unit tube, and the intermediate opening is formed between the partition plates, as recited in claim 5.
Regarding claim 15, the claim would be allowable because the prior art of record does not disclose or fairly suggest the feature: a circular ring disposed outside of a lower-end portion of the tubular powder container and having an inner diameter larger than an inner diameter of a lower end of the tubular powder container; a hook member fixed to the circular ring and configured such that a tip end of the hook member enters a lower-end opening of the tubular powder container upward; and a rotation mechanism that rotates the circular ring around a vertical axis, as recited in claim 15.
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