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(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.
Claims 1 and 5 are 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 1 recites the limitation “the internal surface.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the recycle line bend.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baita (WO 2019/154756 A1) in view of Kufeld (US 2015/0367319).
With respect to claims 1, 2, and 4, Baita discloses an apparatus (see Baita, Fig. 1) for gas-phase polymerization of olefins comprising: (a) a reactor (1); (b) a recycle line (5); (c) a compressor (6); and (d) a heat exchanger (8).
Baita does not explicitly disclose wherein an internal surface of the recycle line has a surface roughness of less than 5 microns.
However, Kufeld discloses an olefins polymerization reactor similar to that of Baita (see Kufeld, Abstract), and explains that “as the roughness of the interior wall increases so does the risk of fouling” (see Kufeld, paragraph [0063]).
Therefore, the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the apparatus of Baita to minimize the surface roughness of the recycle line, such modification minimizing the risk of fouling in the recycle line, as evidenced by Kufeld. In this regard, Kufeld notes a preferred roughness between 10 RMS microinches and 30 RMS microinches (0.228 micron to 0.684 micron) (see Kufeld, paragraph [0064]).
With respect to claim 5, the Federal Circuit has 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. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
With respect to claims 6-9 and 11-13, Baita discloses wherein the compressor may comprise a centrifugal compressor with an impeller; variable guide vanes; butterfly valve with rotational disc; and fluidization grid (see Baita, paragraphs [0008]-[0015]; and [0040]). The reactor may be a multizone circulating reactor having an upward flow area and a downward flow area and the recycle line may be free of a cyclone (see Baita, paragraph [0015]).
With respect to claims 14-18, see discussion supra at paragraph 10. Baita discloses wherein polymerization may take place at a temperature from 20°C to 200°C and pressure of 0.5 MPa to 10 MPa (see Baita, paragraph [0018]); and fluidization velocity may be 0.9 m/s (see Baita, paragraph [0077]). Kufeld discloses wherein typical reaction velocity may be about 20 m/s (see Kufeld, paragraph [0062]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baita (WO 2019/154756 A1) in view of Kufeld (US 2015/0367319) and Delmotte (US 2013/0149740).
With respect to claim 3, see discussion supra at paragraph 10. It is well known to use low temperature steel for the component parts of an olefin polymerization reactor (see, e.g., Delmotte, paragraph [0179]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baita (WO 2019/154756 A1) in view of Kufeld (US 2015/0367319) and Cai (US 2015/0284481).
With respect to claim 10, see discussion supra at paragraph 10. It is well known to use a tubular heat exchanger in the recycle line of an olefin polymerization reactor (see, e.g., Cai, Abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Randy Boyer whose telephone number is (571) 272-7113. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 10:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. (EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Prem C. Singh, can be reached at (571) 272-6381. The fax 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.
/Randy Boyer/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
