DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 13, please insert “plurality of” prior to “first cooling pipes”.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 14, please replace “the first cooling pipe” with “a first cooling pipe”.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 4, delete “the” which precedes “extending portions”.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 15 please insert “plurality of” prior to “first cooling pipes”.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 4, line 1, please replace “the first cooling pipe” with “a first cooling pipe”.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim “using” a reactor apparatus but, since the claim does not set forth any steps involved in the method/process, it is unclear what method/process applicant is intending to encompass. A claim is indefinite where it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced. Replacing “by using” in line 2 with “in” is suggested.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ida et al. (WO 2022/265056).
Ida et al. discloses claimed reactor apparatus comprising a plurality of first cooling pipes each having a serpentine portion that extends linearly or while curving and at least two of the plurality of first cooling pipes have different distances from an inner wall surface of a reactor. The reactor apparatus also contains a plurality of baffles and one part of a plurality of first cooling pipes is arranged at a position that is between two baffles and spaced apart from the inner wall surface of the reactor. The baffles include a second cooling pipe. The reactor apparatus is also equipped with a reflux condenser and jacket. See Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 4, and Figure 6. The reactor has an internal capacity of 40 to 300 m3 (paragraph [0038]). The ratio if surface area of the serpentine portion in relation to internal capacity of the reactor is 0.1 to 0.9 m2/m3 (paragraph [0097]). The reactor apparatus is designed for carrying out suspension polymerization of vinyl chloride.
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Saito et al. (WO 2022/265057).
Saito et al. discloses claimed reactor apparatus comprising a plurality of first cooling pipes each having a serpentine portion that extends linearly or while curving and at least two of the plurality of first cooling pipes have different distances from an inner wall surface of a reactor. The reactor apparatus also contains a plurality of baffles and one part of a plurality of first cooling pipes is arranged at a position that is between two baffles and spaced apart from the inner wall surface of the reactor. The baffles include a second cooling pipe. The reactor apparatus is also equipped with a reflux condenser and jacket. See Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 4, and Figure 6. The reactor has an internal capacity of 40 to 300 m3 (paragraph [0044]). The ratio if surface area of the serpentine portion in relation to internal capacity of the reactor is 0.1 to 0.9 m2/m3 (paragraph [0105]). The reactor apparatus is designed for carrying out suspension polymerization of vinyl chloride.
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of copending Application No. 18/518,617. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Copending claims are drawn to a reactor apparatus having a reactor having a straight body having a tubular shape, a plurality of cooling pipes arranged inside the straight body for circulating a coolant, at least two of the plurality of cooling pipes have different distances from an inner wall surface of the straight body, each of the plurality of cooling pipes has a serpentine portion that extends while repeatedly bending, the serpentine portion includes a plurality of extending portions that extend linearly or extend while curving and a plurality of bending portions that couple ends of two adjacent extending portions, and the internal volume of the reactor is 40 to 300 m3. Copending claims are also drawn to a vinyl-based manufacturing method using the reactor apparatus.
While copending claims do not describe all features recited in instant claims, one of ordinary skill in the art gleans from the disclosure that the reactor apparatus of copending claims is substantially the same as, and therefore not patentably distinct from, the reactor apparatus of instant claims. Applicant’s attention is drawn to MPEP § 804 where it is disclosed that “the specification can always be used as a dictionary to learn the meaning of a term in a patent claim.” In re Boylan, 392 F. 2d 1017, 157 USPQ 370 (CCPA 1986). Further, those portions of the specification which provide support for the patent claims may also be examined and considered when addressing the issue of whether a claim in an application defines an obvious variation of an invention claimed in the patent. In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619,622 (CCPA 1970).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of copending Application No. 18/536,284. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Copending claims are drawn to a reactor apparatus having a reactor having a straight body having a tubular shape, a plurality of first cooling pipes arranged inside the reactor for circulating a coolant, each of the plurality of cooling pipes has a serpentine portion that extends while repeatedly bending, the serpentine portion includes a plurality of extending portions that extend linearly or extend while curving and a plurality of bending portions that couple ends of two adjacent extending portions, a plurality of baffles which extend substantially parallel to the extending direction of the straight body, and a second cooling pipe which is arranged inside at least one of the plurality of baffles. Copending claims are also drawn to a vinyl-based manufacturing method using the reactor apparatus.
While copending claims do not describe all features recited in instant claims, one of ordinary skill in the art gleans from the disclosure that the reactor apparatus of copending claims is substantially the same as, and therefore not patentably distinct from, the reactor apparatus of instant claims. Applicant’s attention is drawn to MPEP § 804 where it is disclosed that “the specification can always be used as a dictionary to learn the meaning of a term in a patent claim.” In re Boylan, 392 F. 2d 1017, 157 USPQ 370 (CCPA 1986). Further, those portions of the specification which provide support for the patent claims may also be examined and considered when addressing the issue of whether a claim in an application defines an obvious variation of an invention claimed in the patent. In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619,622 (CCPA 1970).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In paragraph [0121], line 1, please replace “FIG. 4” with “FIG. 6”.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In paragraph [0146], line 8, please replace “polymerization apparatus 1200” with “polymerization apparatus 1300”.
Drawings
Figure 1 is objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because it includes reference characters “Pi” and “Ht” not mentioned in the description.
Figure 1 is objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because it does not include reference sign “Bw” mentioned in paragraph [0052] of the description.
Figure 2 is objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because it does not include reference sign “100” (polymerization apparatus) mentioned in paragraph [0087] of the description.
Figure 3 is objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because it does not include reference sign “110” (reaction vessel) mentioned in paragraph [0088] of the description.
Figure 3 is objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because it does not include reference sign “100” (polymerization apparatus) mentioned in paragraph [0091] of the description.
Figure 3 is objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because it includes reference characters “122” (agitation shaft) and “124” (agitating blade) not mentioned in paragraphs [0088] to [0093] of the description.
Figure 3 is objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because it includes reference character “A” not mentioned in the description.
Figure 4 is objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because it does not include reference sign “110” (reaction vessel) mentioned in paragraph [0094] of the description.
Figure 4 is objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because it does not include reference sign “100” (polymerization apparatus) mentioned in paragraph [0099] of the description.
Figure 5 is objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters “232” (baffle) and “520” (outer pipe) appear to point to the same structural element.
Figure 5 is objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because it does not include reference signs “236” (baffle) and “238” (baffle) mentioned in paragraph [0111] of the description.
Figure 5 is objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because it does not include reference sign “512” (inlet of the baffle 234) mentioned in paragraph [0112] of the description.
Figure 5 is objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because it does not include reference sign “512” (inlet of the baffle 234) mentioned in paragraph [0114] of the description.
Figure 9 is objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because it does not include reference sign “312” (straight body) mentioned in paragraph [0138] of the description.
Figure 9 is objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because it does not include reference sign “124” (agitating blade) mentioned in paragraph [0138] of the description.
Figure 10 is objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because it does not include reference sign “180” (reflux condenser) mentioned in paragraph [0142] of the description.
Figure 10 is objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because it does not include reference sign “124” (agitating blade) mentioned in paragraph [0142] of the description.
Figure 10 is objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because it does not include reference sign “124” (agitating blade) mentioned in paragraph [0143] of the description.
Figure 11 is objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because it includes reference character “110” not mentioned in paragraph [0144] of the description.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Conclusion
The present invention is drawn to a reactor apparatus comprising a reactor having a tubular shape and a plurality of first cooling pipes arranged inside the reactor for circulating a coolant, wherein each of the plurality of first cooling pipes has a serpentine portion that extends while repeatedly bending, the serpentine portion includes a plurality of extending portions that extend linearly or extend while curving, and a plurality of bending portions that couple ends of two adjacent extending portions, among the plurality of extending portions, at least two of the plurality of first cooling pipes have different distances from an inner wall surface of the reactor, and among the at least two of plurality of first cooling pipes, a length of at least one part of the plurality of extending portions included in a first cooling pipe having a smallest distance from the inner wall surface of the reactor is less than two-thirds of a length of a circumference of the inner wall surface.
Subject of claims is patentably distinct over prior art listed in Applicant’s PTO-1449 and over prior art cited in the accompanying PTO-892.
The closest reference is Ueda et al. (JP 7-233202; US 5,612,437). Prior art teaches a polymerization apparatus comprising a reactor having a tubular shape, serpentine cooling pipes arranged inside the reactor for circulating a coolant, wherein the cooling pipes are arranged between two baffles. The reactor apparatus is also equipped with a reflux condenser. Prior art does not teach a reactor wherein at least two of a plurality of cooling pipes have different distances from an inner wall surface of the reactor.
PNG
media_image1.png
376
272
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
258
326
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Craig et al. (US 4,508,677) discloses a reactor comprising a heat exchange loop 78 having a vertically extending outer serpentine branch secured to outer wall 73 and exposed to the atmosphere outside of shell 71 and an inner serpentine branch secured to inner wall 72 of shell 71.
Prior art reactor contains two of a plurality of cooling pipes having different distances from an inner wall surface of the reactor, but one of the plurality of cooling pipes lies outside of the reactor.
PNG
media_image3.png
384
618
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
508
536
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Additional references have been cited to show the state of the art with respect to reactors containing cooling coils or baffles. None of the references teaches a reactor having the configuration described in instant claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rip A. Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-1104. The examiner can be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Jones, can be reached at (571)270-7733. The 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, 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.
/RIP A LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762 July 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights