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.
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 1-20 are 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.
The claims are indefinite and incomplete because claims 1 and 20 recite a chemical fouling removal method but fail to recite any step of fouling removal.
Claim 2 is further indefinite because it could not be properly understood how a single compound (one of the release agent and the non-ionic surfactant) may be contacted to each other. Does the claim require both of the release agent and the non-ionic surfactant?
Claims 3, 12, 14 are further indefinite because it is not clear from claim 3 what is referenced by “feeding de fouling removal compound” and how the referenced clause is related to what is recited by the parent claim. Is some text missing from the claim?
Further, it appears that claim 3 contradicts to the parent claim 1, which requires “feeding said fouling removal complex into a polymerization medium”, while claim 3 requires forming the referenced complex “in situ”.
Claim 4 is further indefinite because the term “the interface polymer-metal” lacks proper antecedent basis. The claim is further indefinite because it is not clear how the recited interface is related to what is recited by the parent claim.
AS to claims 6 and 7:
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claim 6 recites the broad recitation acetylated glyceride, and the claim also recites acetylated monoglyceride in the “such as” clause, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Further, claim 7 recites the broad recitation an ester of fatty acid and the claim also recites glycerol acids in the “such as” clause, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 7 is further indefinite because it is not clear what is referenced as “more particular embodiments and how the referenced “embodiments” are related to the subject matter of the parent claim.
Claim 7 is further indefinite because it contains some text after period at the end of the claim.
Claims 10 and 11 are further indefinite and could not be properly understood because they recite that “said fouling removal compound is fed into the polymerization medium”. It appears that the referenced claims contradict to the parent claim 1, which requires “feeding said fouling removal complex into a polymerization medium”.
Claim 11 is further indefinite because it is not clear from the claim to where the recited compound if fed.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claim 11 recites the broad recitation higher than 0.5 g/hm2, and the claim also recites from 1-3 g/hm2 in the “preferably” clause, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
The claim is further indefinite because it is not clear what range is required by the recitation of “from 1-3 g/hm2”.
Claim 13 is further indefinite because it is not clear what is referenced by “is used”. How what is recited by this claim is related to the subject matter of the parent claim? Does the claim require both the release agent and the surfactant to form the fouling removal compound?
Claim 15 is indefinite because of the deficiencies of claim 10 indicated above.
The claim is further indefinite because it is not clear where “an amount of fouling removal complex” is increased.
The claim is further indefinite because it is not clear compare with what “an amount of fouling removal complex” is increased.
The claim is further indefinite because it is not clear whether or not “fouling removal complex” recited by the first line of claim 15 is the same as “said fouling removal complex” recited by claim 1.
Claims 16-19 are further indefinite because it is not clear from claim 16 how the recited “removal” is related to the subject matter of claim 1.
The claims are further indefinite because it appears that some text is missing in the clause “removal of fouling in pipping and/or equipment surfaces reduces a fouling resistance up to a steady state is reached” of claim 16.
The claims are further indefinite because it is not clear “fouling resistance” to what is referenced.
Claims 17-19 are further indefinite because it is not clear operation hours of what are referenced.
Claims 18-19 are indefinite and could not be properly understood because it is not clear from claim 18 how an amount of the fouling removal complex may be reduced in the profile of the fouling resistance.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-10, 12, 14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Martins Junior et al (US 2020/0207951).
Martins Junior et al teach a method as claimed.
The method comprises:
selecting at least one of a release agent and/or at least one of a non-ionic surfactant to form a fouling removal compound (readable on the disclosed antistatic agent);
mixing the fouling removal compound with a hydrocarbon;
forming a fouling removal complex by mixing the fouling removal compound, mixed with the hydrocarbon, with at least one alkylaluminum component; and feeding said fouling removal complex into a polymerization medium.
See at least Figures 1-2 and the related description.
As to claim 2:
The claimed step of contacting is inherent from [0078], which recites the use of Grindstead PS 432, which is provided as a mixture of an acetylated monoglyceride and an ester of fatty acid.
As to claim 3:
The recited forming is shown at least on Figure 2,
As to claim 4:
Since the steps of the recited method of Martins Junior et al are the same as claimed, the results of the method are the same as claimed or the invention is not disclosed/claimed in the correspondence with the requirements of 35 USC 112(a).
As to claim 5:
The polymerization process of hydrocarbons as claimed is disclosed at least at [0001], [0032], [0037], Example 5.
As to claim 6:
The compound as claimed is disclosed at least at [0078], [0057].
As to claim 7:
The compound as claimed is disclosed at least at [0030-31], [0036], [0078].
As to claim 8:
The mixing in the equipment as claimed is disclosed at least at [0033].
As to claim 9:
The compound as claimed is disclosed at least at [0032], [0037].
As to claim 10:
Feeding as claimed is disclosed at least at [0044].
As to claim 12:
The compound as claimed is disclosed at least at [0029].
As to claim 14:
The ration as claimed is disclosed at least at [0028].
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.
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) 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Martins Junior et al (US 2020/0207951).
As to claim 15:
This claim is indefinite and could not be properly understood.
Martins Junior et al teach feeding as claimed. See at least at [0044].
In view of the indefiniteness of the claim it is reasonably believed that what is claimed is either anticipated or obvious over the teaching of Martins Junior et al.
As to claims 16-19:
The claims are indefinite and could not be properly understood for the reasons provided above.
In view of the indefiniteness of the claim it is reasonably believed that what is claimed is either anticipated or obvious over the teaching of Martins Junior et al.
As to claim 13:
Since the applicants use the same commercial product (Grindsted PS432) as used by Martins Junior et al it is reasonably believed that the composition of the compound used by Martins Junior et al is the same as claimed.
Alternatively, it would been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to find an optimum amounts/proportions of the disclosed compounds by routine experimentation in the method of Martins Junior et al since amount of the active ingredients is a result effective variable.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Martins Junior et al (US 2020/0207951).
As to claim 11:
Martins Junior et al do not specifically recite the amount of compound used.
However, it would been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to find an optimum amount of the compound by routine experimentation in the method of Martins Junior et al since amount of the active ingredient is a result effective variable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The documents listed on the attached PTO 892 are cited to show the state of the art with respect to methods of polymerization and fouling prevention/removal.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER MARKOFF whose telephone number is (571)272-1304. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:30 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, Michael Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
/ALEXANDER MARKOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711