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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Priority
3. This application is a 371 of PCT/EP2021/076502 09/27/2021.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application EP 20199149.4 09/30/2020 filed on 02/23/23.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS), filed on 02/23/23 has been considered. Please refer to Applicant's copy of the 1449 submitted herewith.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 09/30/25 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-18 are pending. Claims 8-18 are directed to non-elected invention. Claims 8-18 is withdrawn from further consideration by Examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to non-election invention. Claims 1-7 are examined in this Office action.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, the recitation “3olymerization” in line 4 should be “polymerisation” for consistent representation.
In claim 4, the recitation “to obtain to obtain” in line 6 is incorrect. Applicants are required to change “to obtain to obtain” to “to obtain.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiss (US 2008/0234443) in view of Zhang (US 2018/0305531).
Regarding claims 1, 6, Kiss discloses plant for the production of an in-line blended polymer such as polyolefin, the plant comprising a first reactor line for producing a first polymer, a second reactor line for producing a second polymer, and a blending unit for inline-blending the first polymer with the second polymer to obtain the inline-blended polymer, the first reactor line comprising a first polymerization reactor for producing the first polymer and a first separator, the first separator being located downstream of the first polymerization reactor, the second reactor line comprising a second polymerization reactor for producing the second polymer and a second separator, the second separator being located downstream of the second polymerization reactor, wherein both the first separator and the second separator are connected to the blending unit, the blending unit being located downstream of both the first separator and the second separator, and in that the blending unit comprises a flash separator (fig 7, para [0002], [0009], [0114], [0211], [0226]). Regarding ‘wherein the first polymerization reactor has a first internal volume and the second polymerization reactor has a second internal volume,’ Kiss discloses the individual reactors may be of equal or different size and the optimal reactor configuration and sizes may be determined by standard engineering techniques known to those skilled in the art of chemical engineering (para [2009]). Kiss does not specifically disclose the first polymerization reactor has a first internal volume and the second polymerization reactor has a second internal volume, characterized in that the ratio of the first internal volume to the second internal volume is in the range from 95:5 to 55:45 (regarding claim 1) or 85:15 to 60:40 (regarding claim 6).
However, Zhang discloses plant for the production of an in-line blended polymer such as polyolefin composed of at least two parallel reactors having a different internal volume (fig 2-3, para [0055], [0117], [0294]), e.g., wherein volume of first reactor is 200% the volume of second reactor (fig 2-3, para [0188], [0283]) for the optimum amount of time that a fluid element spends inside the reactor for the polymerization (para [0189]). Volume of first reactor is 200% the volume of second reactor, fall into claimed range of 95:5 to 55:45 (regarding claim 1) or 85:15 to 60:40 (regarding claim 6). Kiss and Zhang are pertinent to plant for the production of an in-line blended polymer such as polyolefin, wherein the plant comprising at least two reactors of different sizes.
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the volume of reactors disclosed by Kiss over the same range as Zhang’s reactors, given that both are being used in a similar context for the same purpose, e.g. the production of an in-line blended polymer such as polyolefin. Further, the rationale to do so would have been motivation provided by of Zhang that to do so would provide optimum amount of time for fluid element to spends inside the reactor for the polymerization.
Regarding claim 2, Kiss inherently discloses a first heater is located downstream of the first polymerization reactor and upstream of the first separator, and/or wherein a second heater is located downstream of the second polymerization reactor and upstream of the second separator (para [0114]; Optionally, some or all reactor train effluents may be heated before the first pressure letdown (not shown in FIG. 7) in order to maintain the temperature in the downstream lines and in the separators, including the separation-blending vessel, at the desired value, i.e., above the solid-fluid phase transition temperatures of the polymer-rich phases but below the cloud point of the streams entering the separators, including the separator-blender, to allow the formation of polymer-enriched or polymer-rich denser fluid phases and monomer-rich lighter fluid phases).
Regarding claim 3, Kiss discloses the first separator comprises a top outlet and a bottom outlet, and/or wherein the second separator comprises a top outlet and a bottom outlet (fig 7, para [0114]).
Regarding claim 4, Kiss discloses plant for the production of an inline-blended polymer, the plant comprising a first polymerization reactor for producing a first polymer,
a second polymerization reactor for producing a second polymer and a blending unit for
inline-blending the first polymer with the second polymer to obtain the inline-blended copolymer, wherein both the first polymerization reactor and the second polymerization reactor are connected to the blending unit, the blending unit being located downstream of both the first polymerization reactor and the second polymerization reactor, and in that the blending unit comprises a flash separator (fig 6-7, para [0002], [0009], [0112]-[0114], [0211], [0226]). Kiss inherently discloses a first heater is located downstream of the first polymerization reactor and upstream of the first separator, and/or wherein a second heater is located downstream of the second polymerization reactor and upstream of the second separator (para [0114]; Optionally, some or all reactor train effluents may be heated before the first pressure letdown (not shown in FIG. 7) in order to maintain the temperature in the downstream lines and in the separators, including the separation-blending vessel, at the desired value, i.e., above the solid-fluid phase transition temperatures of the polymer-rich phases but below the cloud point of the streams entering the separators, including the separator-blender, to allow the formation of polymer-enriched or polymer-rich denser fluid phases and monomer-rich lighter fluid phases).
Regarding ‘wherein the first polymerization reactor has a first internal volume and the second polymerization reactor has a second internal volume,’ Kiss discloses the individual reactors may be of equal or different size and the optimal reactor configuration and sizes may be determined by standard engineering techniques known to those skilled in the art of chemical engineering (para [2009]). Kiss does not specifically disclose the first polymerization reactor has a first internal volume and the second polymerization reactor has a second internal volume, characterized in that the ratio of the first internal volume to the second internal volume is in the range from 95:5 to 55:45.
However, Zhang discloses plant for the production of an in-line blended polymer such as polyolefin composed of at least two parallel reactors having a different internal volume (fig 2-3, para [0055], [0117], [0294]), e.g., wherein volume of first reactor is 200% the volume of second reactor (fig 2-3, para [0188], [0283]) for the optimum amount of time that a fluid element spends inside the reactor for the polymerization (para [0189]). Volume of first reactor is 200% the volume of second reactor, fall into claimed range of 95:5 to 55:45. Kiss and Zhang are pertinent to plant for the production of an in-line blended polymer such as polyolefin, wherein the plant comprising at least two reactors of different sizes.
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the volume of reactors disclosed by Kiss over the same range as Zhang’s reactors, given that both are being used in a similar context for the same purpose, e.g. the production of an in-line blended polymer such as polyolefin. Further, the rationale to do so would have been motivation provided by of Zhang that to do so would provide optimum amount of time for fluid element to spends inside the reactor for the polymerization.
Regarding claim 5, Kiss discloses the first polymerization reactor comprises a first reactor inlet for introducing a first feed stream into the first polymerization reactor and a first reactor outlet for withdrawing a first reactor effluent stream comprising the first polymer and/or wherein the second polymerization reactor comprises a second
reactor inlet for introducing a second feed stream into the second polymerization
reactor and a second reactor outlet for withdrawing a second reactor effluent
stream comprising the second polymer (fig 7, para [0114]).
Regarding claim 7, Kiss discloses the blending unit has an outlet for withdrawing the inline-blended polymer (fig 7, para [0114]).
Conclusion
References Henry (US 2018/327529), Wang (US 2018/305530), Nova Chemicals (CA 3029337), Exxonmobil (WO 2011/087728), Kazemi (US 2019/135959), Zhang (US 2018/305532), and SK Energy (WO 2010/030145) were cumulative in nature to the above rejection and thus not set forth.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUMAR R BHUSHAN whose telephone number is (313)446-4807. The examiner can normally be reached 9.00 AM to 5.50 PM (EST).
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, RANDY P GULAKOWSKI can be reached at (571)272-1302. 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.
/KUMAR R BHUSHAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights