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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of prior-filed application 18/133,467 under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed January 22nd, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 5, 10 and 15 have been amended. Claims 2, 4 and 20 have been canceled. Claims 1, 3 and 5-19 remain pending. Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed September 8th, 2026.
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 1, 3, 5-7, 11-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaCour et al. (US 2009/0250411) in view of Gneuss (US 6500336).
Regarding claim 1, LaCour et al. (US 2009/0250411) teaches a system for removing particle agglomerates from a particulate product stream (Paragraph 0002 lines 1-2), the system comprising:
a product stream inlet (Fig. 2 #112) configured for receiving the particulate product stream (Paragraph 0026 lines 5-6);
a diverter system (Fig. 2 #122) connected to the product stream inlet (Fig. 2 #122 connected to #112) and configured for permitting a particulate product having a size less than or equal to a desired size to pass through the diverter system (Paragraph 0024 lines 1-8) and temporarily retaining a particle agglomerate having a size greater than the desired size in the diverter system (Paragraph 0024 lines 1-18);
a carrying fluid source (Fig. 4 #490) connected to the diverter system configured to feed a carrying fluid into the diverter system to carry the particle agglomerate out of the diverter system during a discharge operation (Paragraph 0046 lines 7-20);
a collector vessel (Fig. 4 #480) connected to the diverter system, the collector vessel configured for receiving the particle agglomerate carried out by the carrying fluid from the diverter system during the discharge operation (Paragraph 0046 lines 7-20); and
a particulate product outlet (Fig. 2 #114, Fig. 4 #414) connected to the diverter system (Fig. 2 #114 connected to #122), the particulate product outlet configured for conveying the particulate product to a downstream process (Paragraph 0026 lines 6-11),
wherein the diverter system comprises a slide valve (Paragraph 0030 lines 8-15) comprising at least two orifices (Fig. 3a #226a and #226b).
LaCour et al. (US 2009/0250411) lacks teaching wherein the slide valve comprises a trap in each of the at least two orifices.
Gneuss (US 6500336) teaches a system for removing particle agglomerates from a particulate product stream (Col. 1 lines 8-14) wherein the slide valve (Fig. 1 #5) comprises a trap in each of the at least two orifices (Fig. 1 #6, Col. 2 lines 30-37).
Gneuss (US 6500336) states that the filter layers supported in cavities are correlatable with the inflow and outflow (Col. 1 lines 10-14). Gneuss (US 6500336) explains that the slide having filter layers may be exchanged with relatively minimal forces and without significant wear (Col. 1 line 63-Col. 2 line 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify LaCour et al. (US 2009/0250411) to include wherein the slide valve comprises a trap in each of the at least two orifices as taught by Gneuss (US 6500336) in order to provide different traps correlatable with the flow of particulates and exchange the traps with relatively minimal forces and without significant wear.
Regarding claim 3, LaCour et al. (US 2009/0250411) teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the slide valve is configured for capturing lumps (Paragraph 0024 lines 1-18) and removing the lumps from the system (Paragraph 0030 lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 5, LaCour et al. (US 2009/0250411) teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the diverter system further comprises a plurality of discharging pipes (Fig. 2 #120b, Fig. 4 #446) connected to the slide valve (Fig. 2 #120b connected to #122) and configured to carry out the particle agglomerate (Paragraph 0035 lines 9-25, Paragraph 0038 lines 6-15).
Regarding claim 6, LaCour et al. (US 2009/0250411) teaches the system of claim 5, wherein each of the plurality of the discharging pipes (Fig. 2 #120b, Fig. 4 #446) comprises a valve (Fig. 2 #140 in #120b, Fig. 4 #478 in #446).
Regarding claim 7, LaCour et al. (US 2009/0250411) teaches the system of claim 5, wherein the carrying fluid source (Fig. 4 #490) is a plurality of carrying fluid sources (Fig. 4 #490, 482, Paragraph 0046 lines 16-20).
Regarding claim 11, LaCour et al. (US 2009/0250411) teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising a flushing inlet (Fig. 6 #638) located upstream the diverter system (Fig. 6 #638 upstream #622), the flushing inlet configured to feed an inert cooling fluid upstream the diverter system during the discharge operation (Paragraph 0066 lines 3-14).
Regarding claim 12, LaCour et al. (US 2009/0250411) teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising a first valve (Fig. 4 #476) located intermediate the carrying fluid source and the diverter system (Fig. 4 #476 located intermediate #490 and #422), the first valve being opened during the discharge operation (see #476 in Table 1) and closed during a time when the system is not in the discharge operation (Paragraph 0040 lines 8-10, 12-16).
Regarding claim 14, LaCour et al. (US 2009/0250411) teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the particulate product stream comprises a polymer (Paragraph 0051 lines 1-11), and the system is connected to a gas-phase polymerization reactor (Paragraph 0037 lines 8-11).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaCour et al. (US 2009/0250411) in view of Gneuss (US 6500336) and further in view of Boothe et al. (US 2011/0302889).
Regarding claim 8, LaCour et al. (US 2009/0250411) lacks teaching the system of claim 1, wherein the slide valve comprises one or more retention bars configured for permitting the particulate product having a size less than or equal to the desired size to exit the system and retaining the particle agglomerate having a size greater than the desired size.
Boothe et al. (US 2011/0302889) teaches a system for removing particle agglomerates from a particulate product stream (Paragraph 0002 lines 1-10) wherein the slide valve comprises one or more retention bars (Fig. 21 #1310) configured for permitting the particulate product having a size less than or equal to the desired size to exit the system (Fig. 21 #1302) and retaining the particle agglomerate having a size greater than the desired size (Paragraph 0126 lines 3-10). Boothe et al. (US 2011/0302889) explains that the retention bars permit passage of fluid and pellets through discharge outlet, but collects adhered, clumped, or otherwise agglomerated pellets and directs them towards the discharge (Paragraph 0126 lines 5-10), wherein the choice of retention bars is of particular importance to minimize clogging during an overflow situation (Paragraph 0127 lines 19-26).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify LaCour et al. (US 2009/0250411) to include wherein the slide valve comprises one or more retention bars configured for permitting the particulate product having a size less than or equal to the desired size to exit the system and retaining the particle agglomerate having a size greater than the desired size as taught by Boothe et al. (US 2011/0302889) in order to minimize clogging within the slide valve.
Regarding claim 9, LaCour et al. (US 2009/0250411) lacks teaching the system of claim 8, wherein the one or more retention bars have a teardrop shaped cross section, a circular cross section, a diamond shaped cross section, or combinations thereof.
Boothe et al. (US 2011/0302889) teaches a system for removing particle agglomerates from a particulate product stream (Paragraph 0002 lines 1-10) wherein the one or more retention bars (Fig. 21 #1310) have a teardrop shaped cross section, a circular cross section (Fig. 21 round bars #1310 have circular cross section), a diamond shaped cross section, or combinations thereof. Boothe et al. (US 2011/0302889) explains that the retention bars permit passage of fluid and pellets through discharge outlet, but collects adhered, clumped, or otherwise agglomerated pellets and directs them towards the discharge (Paragraph 0126 lines 5-10), wherein the choice of retention bars is of particular importance to minimize clogging during an overflow situation (Paragraph 0127 lines 19-26).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify LaCour et al. (US 2009/0250411) to include wherein the one or more retention bars have a teardrop shaped cross section, a circular cross section, a diamond shaped cross section, or combinations thereof as taught by Boothe et al. (US 2011/0302889) in order to minimize clogging within the slide valve.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaCour et al. (US 2009/0250411) in view of Gneuss (US 6500336), Boothe et al. (US 2011/0302889) and further in view of Blickley et al. (US 2010/0264243).
Regarding claim 10, LaCour et al. (US 2009/0250411) lacks teaching the system of claim 8, wherein the one or more retention bars have a teardrop shaped cross section, a diamond shaped cross section, or combination thereof.
Blickley et al. (US 2010/0264243) teaches a system for removing particle agglomerates from a particulate product stream (Paragraph 0014 lines 1-5), wherein the one or more retention bars (Fig. 3A #302) have a teardrop shaped cross section, a diamond shaped cross section (Paragraph 0024 lines 1-5), or combination thereof. Blickley et al. (US 2010/0264243) explains that a limited upper surface area upon which particulate matter may be plowed across the bars may enhance the separation of particulate material, and explains that diamond shaped bars may be used to present a low surface area upon which settling and plowing of particulate matter may occur (Paragraph 0077 lines 5-14).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify LaCour et al. (US 2009/0250411) to include wherein the one or more retention bars have a teardrop shaped cross section, a diamond shaped cross section, or combination thereof as taught by Blickley et al. (US 2010/0264243) in order to provide retention bars with a low upper surface area upon which material can settle upon.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaCour et al. (US 2009/0250411) in view of Gneuss (US 6500336) and further in view of Nyfors et al. (US 2014/0171611).
Regarding claim 13, LaCour et al. (US 2009/0250411) teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the collector vessel (Fig. 4 #480) further comprises a carrying fluid-particle agglomerate segregation system (Fig. 4 #482), an impact absorption system (Fig. 4 see tangential inlet from #446 into #480), and a carrying fluid outlet (Fig. 4 outlet at top of #480 to #482).
LaCour et al. (US 2009/0250411) lacks teaching wherein the collector vessel further comprises a particle agglomerates outlet.
Nyfors et al. (US 2014/0171611) teaches a system for removing particle agglomerates from a particulate product stream (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-5) wherein the collector vessel (Fig. 1 #1) further comprises a particle agglomerates outlet (Fig. 1 #9). Nyfors et al. (US 2014/0171611) explains that the rate of return gas and the outlet rate of polymer product from the outlet vessel may be controlled to allow a continuous process and ensure less risk of blocking (Paragraph 0034 lines 2-7).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify LaCour et al. (US 2009/0250411) to include wherein the collector vessel further comprises a particle agglomerates outlet as taught by Nyfors et al. (US 2014/0171611) in order to enable a continuous process by removing particle agglomerates without interruption to the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-19 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 15 recites “the actuating is conducted before the dislodging and the conveying” wherein this limitation, in combination with the remaining limitations of claims 15, was not seen in the searched prior art. The searched prior art performed the actuating step after the dislodging of the particle agglomerate in order to provide further cleaning of the retention bars.
Claims 16-19 are allowed as they are dependent upon claim 15.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed January 22nd, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of amended claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Gneuss (US 6500336).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the double patenting rejection(s) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the double patenting rejection has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Molly K Devine whose telephone number is (571)270-7205. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-4:00.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached at (571) 272-7805. 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.
/MOLLY K DEVINE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3653