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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 contains the terms (Cr(acac)3 and PNPNH as catalyst. The acac should be spelled out for clarity. In addition the PNPNH is a class of catalyst. This should be spelled out so the type of catalysts which meet the claim limitations are more precisely defined.
Claim 18 state “the loop reactor is configured to reduce dead spot therein compared to non-loop reactors”. Many reactors that are not loop do not have dead spots. The loop configuration is by definition different than a non loop reactor. A physical part must be defined here that reduces dead spots for the claim limitation to make any sense. Please pluralize the word “spot” in this claim or define that the loop configuration can have only 1 dead spot.
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.
Claim(s) 1-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 02/04119 a1, hereafter ‘119) and Horre et al (BR 112015016333 B1, a copy of the translation used will be sent with this office action).
‘119 teaches a method and system for producing oligomer from olefins. See page 11 lines 1-25. The product is 1-hexene and small amount (less than 1%) of 1-octene. Waxes (c18 and more olefins) are also produced. See table p 29. The wanted/preferred product can be hexene or octene.
The reactor can be a loop reactor (page 13, lines 1-5). The system can have no purification and separation systems known in the art. See page 13, lines 18-30.
The reaction conditions are 25-200C and pressures of 30 bar or below. See page 12 lines 6-13. There is no indication the temperature cannot remain constant. The residence/reaction time can be 90 minutes or less. See example 17 page 28. The amount of catalyst used can be less than 10% of the total composition during reaction, See example 1 page 22.
In a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1946), and MPEP 2144.05.
Catalysts used include those in the PNPNH family (page 5-6) and triethylaluminum (p 7 lines 3-10)
Solvents useable include xylene, toluene and others. See page 12 lines 1-5.
Regarding claim 3 No treatment fluid is listed as necessary.
‘119 dose not specifically state the use of settling leg or a tube and shell configuration.
Horre teaches a loop reactor for the preparation of polyolefins (abstract).
The configuration is a tube and shell reaction in fluid communication with heating and cooling means. See p 25. This is fluid communication with the catalyst and olefins.
The reactor has multiple settling legs to separate product in portion via fluid communication with no mention of backwash to the loop reactor. See p 27. The settling legs can be removed from fluid communication for washing (thus separating them). See p 27-34.
Regarding claims 2, 4-5, and 21-23 and the issue of controlling backflow. This is not specifically stated. The examiner takes office notice that keeping purposefully separated product and by product from reintegration is a well known and desirable effect for any system.
it is the position of the examiner that the distance between the pump and the first of multiple settling legs is a result effective variable and as such can be optimized without undue experimentation. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within the skill in the art and would have been obvious, consult In re Boesch and Slaney (205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK C CAMPANELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3165. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00.
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, Prem Singh can be reached at 571-272-6381. 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.
/FRANCIS C CAMPANELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/PREM C SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1771