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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 14 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 13 July 2026.
Summary
This non-final office action for application 18/518,617 is in response to Applicant’s reply, filed on 13 July 2026, to an election/restriction requirement dated 28 May 2026. Claims 1-13 and 15-16 are under full consideration.
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hyman et al. (US-3998931-A), hereinafter “Hyman”.
Regarding Claim 1, Hyman discloses a reactor apparatus, comprising: a reactor having a straight body having a tubular shape (the reactor vessel consists of a vertical cylinder 1; see Col. 4 Lines 22-23 and Fig. 1); an agitation shaft one part of which is arranged inside the straight body and which is configured to be rotatable (coaxial impellers below the liquid level in the reactor… arranged and rotated on a drive shaft 12; see Col. 4 Lines 55-60); and a plurality of agitating blades attached to different positions in an extending direction of the agitation shaft (coaxial impellers arranged and rotated on a drive shaft 12; see Col. 4 Lines 55-60 and Fig. 1 Parts 10-11), wherein each of the plurality of agitating blades is attached at a different position in the extending direction of the agitation shaft (see Fig. 1 Parts 10-11), and dimensions of the straight body, dimensions of at least one of the plurality of agitating blades, and a set value of a number of rotations of the agitation shaft satisfy a relationship represented by following Expression 1
(Expression 1)
N(b/d)(L/D)/n ≤ 6.0
(in Expression 1, N represents a number of the plurality of agitating blades, b represents a maximum value [m] of blade widths of the plurality of agitating blades, d represents a maximum value [m] of blade diameters of the plurality of agitating blades, L represents a length [m] of the straight body in an extending direction, when the straight body is cut along a plurality of planes substantially perpendicular to the extending direction of the straight body and passing through respective attachment positions of the plurality of agitating blades, D represents a maximum value [m] of diameters of a plurality of inscribed circles substantially inscribed in the straight body in respective cross sections taken along the plurality of planes, and n represents the set value of the number of rotations [rps] of the agitation shaft) (height of the tank is 56 in. (this is L), diameter of the tank is 36 in. (this is D), both impellers are 16 inches in diameter (this is d), both impellers are 3 inches wide (this is b), two coaxial impellers (this is N); see Col. 4 Line 55 – Col. 5 Line 5; and “The impellers are rotated at peripheral speed of 600 to 1000 ft./min”; see Col. 3 Lines 53-54. This peripheral speed translates to a rotational speed range which includes a speed of about 2.39 rps. When plugging all of these values into expression 1, the value on the left hand side of the expression is approximately 0.244s-1, which satisfies the requirement of being less than or equal to 6).
It is further noted that expression 1 is dependent on the set value of the number of rotations of the agitation shaft, which is a functional or operational constraint rather than a structural limitation. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the rotational speed at which the shaft is operated would be chosen according to the desired results. The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). Hence, the limitation of the rotational speed, and thus expression 1, does not further define the actual structure of the apparatus, but merely sets forth a manner of operating the apparatus. Functional limitations that do not limit the structure need not be given further due consideration in determining patentability of an apparatus.
Regarding Claim 2, Hyman discloses the reactor apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the dimensions of the straight body, the dimensions of at least one of the plurality of agitating blades, and the set value of the number of rotations of the agitation shaft satisfy a relationship represented by following Expression 2: (Expression 2) 0.05 ≤ N(b/d)(L/D)/n ≤ 6.0 (in Expression 2, definitions of N, b, d, L, D, and n are similar to definitions in Expression 1.) (see claim 1 rejection where it is established that this relationship is disclosed). It is further noted that expression 2 is dependent on the set value of the number of rotations of the agitation shaft, which is a functional or operational constraint rather than a structural limitation. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the rotational speed at which the shaft is operated would be chosen according to the desired results. The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). Hence, the limitation of the rotational speed, and thus expression 1, does not further define the actual structure of the apparatus, but merely sets forth a manner of operating the apparatus. Functional limitations that do not limit the structure need not be given further due consideration in determining patentability of an apparatus.
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.
Claims 3, 5-7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyman et al. (US-3998931-A), hereinafter “Hyman” in view of Takuya (JPH07233202A).
Regarding Claim 3, Hyman discloses the reactor apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the dimensions of at least one of the plurality of agitating blades, and the set value of the number of rotations of the agitation shaft satisfy a relationship represented by following Expression 3: (Expression 3) 0.15 ≤ N(b/d)(L/D)/n ≤ 5.5 (in Expression 3, definitions of N, b, d, L, D, and n are similar to those in Expression 1). (see claim 1 rejection where it is established that this relationship is disclosed). It is further noted that expression 2 is dependent on the set value of the number of rotations of the agitation shaft, which is a functional or operational constraint rather than a structural limitation. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the rotational speed at which the shaft is operated would be chosen according to the desired results. The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). Hence, the limitation of the rotational speed, and thus expression 1, does not further define the actual structure of the apparatus, but merely sets forth a manner of operating the apparatus. Functional limitations that do not limit the structure need not be given further due consideration in determining patentability of an apparatus.
Hyman does not explicitly teach cooling pipes. However, Takuya discloses a plurality of cooling pipes arranged inside the straight body, for circulating a coolant (a plurality of longitudinal baffles 4 each comprising a cooling pipe are provided inside the polymerization vessel 1. By passing the refrigerant through the baffle 4; see [0015]), wherein at least two of the plurality of cooling pipes have different distances from an inner wall surface of the straight body (see Fig. 1, Part 4).
Hyman and Takuya are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of polymerization reactors. Incorporating the cooling pipes taught by Hyman would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Takuya offers the motivation of increasing the heat removal efficiency (see [0015]), which effectively avoids the generation of polymer scale and the deterioration of polymer quality (see [0012]).
Regarding Claim 5, Hyman and Takuya together disclose the reactor apparatus according to claim 3. Takuya further discloses wherein each of the plurality of cooling pipes has a serpentine portion that extends while repeatedly bending (meandering extends between adjacent baffles 4 by meandering in multiple stages from below to above along the inner wall surface of the polymerization vessel 1. A pipe 6 is provided. By passing the refrigerant through the meandering pipe; see [0016] and Figs. 1 and 3), and the serpentine portion includes a plurality of extending portions that extend linearly or extend while curving (The meandering pipe 6 preferably has a horizontal portion 7; see [0017] and Fig. 3), and a plurality of bending portions that couple ends of two adjacent extending portions, among the plurality of extending portions (A connecting portion 8 connects the two horizontal portions 7 and 7 adjacent to each other in the vertical direction. Although the shape of the connection part 8 is not specifically limited, it is preferable that it is a smooth arc shape; see [0017] and Fig. 3). Incorporating the meandering or serpentine pipe structure taught by Takuya would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective because Takuya discloses the motivation of improving heat removal efficiency (see [0016]).
Regarding Claim 6, Hyman and Takuya together disclose the reactor apparatus according to claim 5. Takuya further discloses that the clearance between the pipes in the horizontal part was 90 mm (see [0029]), which is equal to 3.54 inches. When modifying Hyman’s reactor, which has a length of 56 inches (see Col. 4 Lines 63-64), to include the meandering pipe with a distance of 3.54 inches as taught by Takuya, the proportion of a distance between two adjacent extending portions to the length of the straight body in the extending direction is between 0.5 to 15%. Incorporating the meandering pipes of Takuya with the disclosed distance between horizontal/extending portions would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Takuya discloses that this distance has an effect on the polymer scale that tends to adhere between the inner wall surface of the polymerization vessel and the meandering pipe (see [0018]).
Regarding Claim 7, Hyman and Takuya together disclose the reactor apparatus according to claim 3. Takuya further discloses wherein a distance between the plurality of cooling pipes and the inner wall surface of the straight body is 40 mm (see [0018]), which is equivalent to 1.57 inches. When incorporating this distance into the reactor of Hyman, which has a diameter of 36 inches (see Col. 4 Line 65), the ratio of the minimum distance between the cooling pipe and the inner wall surface of the straight body to an inner diameter of the straight body is approximately 4.4%, which is within the claimed range of 0.5 to 10%. Hyman does not explicitly disclose the tank diameter as being an inner diameter, but this can be reasonably inferred because Hyman defines the tank diameter to establish the geometry of components inside the cylindrical reaction space. Further, Hyman separately identifies the “outer wall” when referencing the exterior surface (see Col. 4 Line 25). The maximum distance between the cooling pipes and the inner wall surface of the straight body that Takuya discloses is 200mm (see [0040]), which is equivalent to about 2.87 inches. When incorporating this distance into the reactor of Hyman, which has a diameter of 36 inches (see Col. 4 Line 65), the ratio of the maximum distance between the cooling pipe and the inner wall surface of the straight body to an inner diameter of the straight body is approximately 22%, which is within the claimed range of 1 to 30%. Incorporating these distances would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Takuya offers the motivation of limiting the polymer scale that adheres between the inner wall of the polymerization vessel, the baffle, and the meandering pipe (see [0018]).
Regarding Claim 11, Hyman discloses the reactor apparatus according to claim 1 wherein a ratio (L/D) of the length L of the straight body in the extending direction to the maximum value D of the diameters of the plurality of inscribed circles is 1 to 3 (the height of the cylindrical tank is 56 inches and the diameter of the tank is 36 inches; see Col. 4 Lines 64-65). Takuya further discloses wherein an internal volume of the reactor is 40 to 300 m3 (The polymerization vessel has an internal volume of 80 m3; see [0038]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to choose an appropriate volume of the reactor. The courts have held that scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up would not establish patentability (see In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) “mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled.” 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148. In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyman et al. (US-3998931-A), hereinafter “Hyman” in view of Takuya (JPH07233202A) and Yukimasa (JP-2000143706-A).
Regarding Claim 4, Hyman and Takuya together disclose the reactor apparatus according to claim 3. Modified Hyman does not explicitly teach a rotation speed that would satisfy the relationship represented by Expression 4. However, Yukimasa discloses an agitating shaft capable of a rotation speed within a range of 0 to 360 r/m (see [0049]), which is equal to a range of 0 to 6 rps. This range encompasses a speed of, i.e., 1.67 rps. When incorporating a rotational speed of 1.67 rps in the reactor taught by Hyman, Expression 4, 0.3 ≤ N(b/d)(L/D)/n ≤ 3.0, would therefore be satisfied. It is further noted that expression 2 is dependent on the set value of the number of rotations of the agitation shaft, which is a functional or operational constraint rather than a structural limitation. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the rotational speed at which the shaft is operated would be chosen according to the desired results. The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). Hence, the limitation of the rotational speed, and thus expression 1, does not further define the actual structure of the apparatus, but merely sets forth a manner of operating the apparatus. Functional limitations that do not limit the structure need not be given further due consideration in determining patentability of an apparatus.
Hyman and Yukimasa are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of polymerization reactors. Incorporating a rotational speed within the range disclosed by Yukimasa would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Yukimasa discloses that a stirring rotation speed can be chosen depending on the desired gas content in the slurry (see [0012]).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyman et al. (US-3998931-A), hereinafter “Hyman” in view of Varela-Fuentes et al. (US-20040254397-A1), hereinafter “Varela”.
Regarding Claim 8, Hyman discloses the reactor apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the agitation shafts is attached to the reactor so that the extending direction of the agitation shaft and the extending direction of the straight body are substantially identical (see Fig. 1).
Hyman does not explicitly teach the claimed blade position. However, Varela discloses wherein a minimum value of distances between attachment positions of the plurality of agitating blades in the agitation shaft and a position of the agitation shaft corresponding to one end of the straight body is 0.1 to 0.45 times the length L of the straight body in the extending direction (impeller 18 is located at a height from 0.4 to 0.6 times the total height of the reactor; see [0043]).
Hyman and Varela are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of mechanically agitated reactors. Disposing the impellers at a position corresponding to 0.4 to 0.6 times the total length of the straight body, as taught by Varela, would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Varela offers the motivation of enabling the reaction mixture feed to be set at a point/zone defined by the impeller blade (see [0046]) which improves dispersion efficiency (see [0049]).
Regarding Claim 9, Hyman and Varela together disclose the reactor apparatus according to claim 8. Varela further discloses wherein the one end of the straight body is an upper end of the straight body (a height from 0.4 to 0.6 times the total height of the reactor is equivalent to a range of 0.4 to 0.6 times the total height in either direction). Regarding the limitations claiming, “an attachment position of an agitating blade, which is attached lowermost among the plurality of agitating blades, in the agitation shaft is arranged between a first position and a second position of the agitation shaft, the first position is located above the second position when the agitation shaft is attached to the straight body, a distance between the first position and a position of the agitation shaft corresponding to a lower end of the straight body is 0.25 times or less the maximum value D of the diameters of the plurality of inscribed circles, and a distance between the second position and the position of the agitation shaft corresponding to the lower end of the straight body is 0.1 times or less the maximum value D of the diameters of the plurality of inscribed circles”, this merely requires that an attachment position of a lowermost agitating blade is disposed between an upper, or first, position and a lower, or second, position. Based on the claim language, these positions are arbitrary and merely need to be above and below the lowermost blade to satisfy the structure thus far. There are many positions above and below the lowermost agitating blade in the prior art that satisfy a distance between the first position and a position of the agitation shaft corresponding to a lower end of the straight body being 0.25 times or less the maximum value D of the diameters of the plurality of inscribed circles, and a distance between the second position and the position of the agitation shaft corresponding to the lower end of the straight body being 0.1 times or less the maximum value D of the diameters of the plurality of inscribed circles.
Claims 10, 12-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyman et al. (US-3998931-A), hereinafter “Hyman” in view of Yukimasa (JP-2000143706-A).
Regarding Claim 10, Hyman discloses the reactor apparatus according to claim 1. Yukimasa then discloses wherein a maximum value of distances between attachment positions of (N-2) third agitating blades, which are obtained by excluding a first agitating blade attached uppermost and a second agitating blade attached lowermost from the plurality of agitating blades, and (N-1) third positions obtained by equally dividing, into (N-1), a distance between a first attachment position, which is an attachment position of the first agitating blade, and a second attachment position, which is an attachment position of the second agitating blade is 0.5 times or less a ratio (D/N) of the maximum value D of the diameters of the plurality of inscribed circles to the number N of the plurality of agitating blades. Specifically, Yukimasa discloses that the two turbine blades 4 were arranged at intervals of about 320mm (see [0049]) with respect to the paddle blade 3 which is the lowermost blade (see [0049] and Fig. 1). This configuration would make the value of distances between the third attachment position and the third position equal to zero, which is inevitably less than 0.5 times a ratio of (D/N). Placing the blade at this position, as taught by Yukimasa, would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Yukimasa discloses that it assists in increasing the efficiency of the catalyst and reducing the power required for stirring (see [0061]).
Regarding Claim 12, Hyman discloses the reactor apparatus according to claim 1. Yukimasa further discloses wherein the plurality of agitating blades include paddle blades (paddle blades 3; see [0026]). KSR Rationale B (see MPEP 2141) states that it is obvious to perform “simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to use the paddle blades of Yukimasa to achieve the predictable result of agitating the reactor contents.
Regarding Claim 13, Hyman discloses the reactor apparatus according to claim 1. Yakimusa further discloses a control unit which controls the number of rotations of the agitation shaft (The stirring shaft 2 is rotated by an inverter motor 10 installed outside the tank and capable of changing the rotation speed within a range of 0 to 360 r/m; see [0049]) so that the number of rotations of the agitation shaft satisfies the relationship by Expression 1 (see claim 1 rejection which describes that 0 to 360 r/m includes speeds that satisfy Expression 1). Including a control unit which controls the number of rotations, as disclosed by Yakimusa, would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Yakimusa offers the motivation of the capability of changing the rotation speed to satisfy the calculated particle concentration equilibrium according to different operating conditions and configurations (see [0053] and [0049]).
Regarding Claim 15, the limitations of this claim do not exceed those of claims 1 and 13. Please refer to the rejections of claims 1 and 13 as the rejection of claim 15 follows the same rationale.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyman et al. (US-3998931-A), hereinafter “Hyman” in view of Yukimasa (JP-2000143706-A) and Jaques et al. (US-10801003-B2), hereinafter “Jaques”.
Regarding Claim 16, Hyman and Yakimusa together disclose an agitation apparatus comprising the control apparatus according to claim 15 (see claim 15 rejection); the agitation shaft (see claim 15 rejection), and a drive unit which rotates the agitation shaft (The stirring shaft 2 is rotated by an inverter motor 10 installed outside the tank and capable of changing the rotation speed within a range of 0 to 360 r/m; see Yakimusa [0049]). While a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the motor of Yakimusa controls the number of rotations by controlling the output, it is not explicitly disclosed. However, Jaques discloses a drive unit which rotates the agitation shaft, wherein the control apparatus controls the number of rotations of the agitation shaft by controlling output of the drive unit (The controller can be configured to control the motor in a manner that rotates the shaft at a predetermined speed based upon information received from the tachometer; see Col. 10 Lines 29-31).
Hyman and Jaques are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of agitation apparatuses. Incorporating the control unit and drive unit configuration taught by Jaques would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Jaques offers the motivation of enabling corrective action to be taken when the measured stir speed is outside a predetermined stir speed band (see Col. 27 Lines 65-67).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA LEE KUYKENDALL whose telephone number is (571)270-3806. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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.
/A.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1774 /CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights