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. Drawings Figure 2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 1-14 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. Regarding claim 1, the relationship between “a precipitation tank” (at line 7) and “a precipitation tank” previously set forth in the claim (at lines 5-6) is unclear. Regarding claim 3, the language of the claim is directed to a process limitation (i.e., an operating pressure) which makes it unclear as to the further structural limitation(s) intended for the apparatus being claimed. Regarding claim 6, the language of the claim is directed to a process limitation (i.e., an operating temperature) which makes it unclear as to the further structural limitation(s) intended for the apparatus being claimed. Regarding claim 7, the language of the claim is directed to a process limitation (i.e., an operating pressure) which makes it unclear as to the further structural limitation(s) intended for the apparatus being claimed. Regarding claim 8, the limitation “ a storage container that receives from the precipitation tank and stores the supernatant, where the polymer contained in the reaction solution is removed ” (with emphasis added) is unclear. Based on Applicant’s disclosure (see FIG. 1; paragraph [0043]-[0044]), the precipitation tank 20 removes the polymer from the reaction solution (shown as dark solids collecting at the bottom of the precipitation tank 20 ) and then discharges the supernatant (the reaction solution, in which the polymer has been removed) through the precipitation tank discharge pipe 21 to the storage container 30 . Therefore, it appears that the precipitation tank 20 , and not the storage container 30 , performs the recited function “where the polymer contained in the reaction solution is removed”. Regarding claim 9, the language of the claim is directed to a process limitation (i.e., an operating pressure) which makes it unclear as to the further structural limitation(s) intended for the apparatus being claimed. Regarding claim 10, the language of the claim is directed to a process limitation (i.e., an operating pressure) which makes it unclear as to the further structural limitation(s) intended for the apparatus being claimed. The remaining claims are also rejected because they depend from a rejected base claim. 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. Claims 1-4, 7, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Mallison (US 2,777,832). The instant “system” claims are considered apparatus claims. Regarding claim 1, Mallison (see Figure) discloses a system for transferring reaction solution , comprising: a reactor (i.e., a polymerization reactor 1 ; see column 3, lines 11-23) for receiv ing and react ing a feed stream (i.e., a feed stream co mprising feed components supplied from tanks 9 , 10 , and 11 ) to form a reaction solution (i.e., a reaction solution containing a polymer product of a polymerization reaction ) ; a reactor discharge pipe (i.e., a gravity overflow connection 12 ; see column 3, lines 24- 26) provided on a side portion (i.e., on a n upper portion of a side wall) of the reactor 1 at a position corresponding to a surface height of the reaction solution in the reactor (see level of the reaction solution in the polymerization reactor 1 , as shown by the Figure); and a collecting tank 13 (see column 3, lines 24-37) , wherein the reactor discharge pipe 12 is connected to the collecting tank 13 to transfer the reaction solution from the reactor 1 to the collecting tank 13 . T he collecting tank 13 is further capable of functioning as a “ precipitation tank ” for precipitating a polymer contained in the reaction solution to form a supernatant . In particular, Mallison discloses that the collecting tank 13 is able to process polymer slurr ies containing solid polymer particles , and the reaction solution received from the reactor 1 can be held in the collecting tank 13 for a predetermined period time (see column 3, lines 24-28; column 7, line 33, to column 8, lines 27). A polymer contained in the reaction solution would be able to precipitate within the collecting tank 13 to form solid polymer particles . The solid polymer particles would also be able to settle to the bottom of the collecting tank 13 , and a supernatant (a liquid phase) would be able to form above the solid polymer particles . A recitation of the intended use of the claimed apparatus must result in a structural difference between the claimed apparatus and the prior art apparatus in order to patentably distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP § 2114. Regarding claim 2, Mallison discloses that the reactor discharge pipe 12 (see Figure) does not include a control valve. Regarding claim 3, the further limitation “ wherein an operating pressure of the reactor and an operating pressure of the precipitation tank are the same” does not patentably distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art. T he system of Mallison would be operable in a manner such that a pressure of the reactor 1 and a pressure of the collecting [precipitating] tank 13 w as the same, since the reactor discharge pipe 12 would provide pressure co mmunication between the reactor 1 and the collecting [precipitating] tank 13 . Regarding claim 4, Mallison discloses that the reactor discharge pipe 12 (see Figure) is provided to be inclined downward from the reactor 1 to the collecting [precipitating] tank 13 . Regarding claim 7, the further recitation of a specific operating pressure of the precipitating tank does not patentably distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art. In the system of Mallison, a n operating pressure of t he collecting [precipitating] tank 13 can be set by supplying an inert gas to the reactor 1 by an inert gas line 17 , since the reactor discharge pipe 12 would provide pressure co mmunication between the reactor 1 and the collecting [precipitating] tank 13 . Regarding claim 14, the recitation with respect to the intended use of the reactor as an “ethylene oligomerization reactor” does not patentably distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art. In the system of Mallison, the reactor 1 would be operable as an ethylene oligomerization reactor in the event that ethylene was supplied as a monomer (i.e., from the monomer supply tank 10 ) , along with a suitable catalyst for catalyzing the ethylene oligomerization reaction (i.e., from the catalyst solution tank 9 ), and the appropriate process conditions were maintained in the reactor 1 for the ethylene oligomerization reaction. 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. Claim s 5 , 6 , and 8 - 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mallison (US 2,777,832). Regarding claim 5, the Figure in Mallison depicts the reactor discharge pipe 12 with a slope at a predetermined angle. While the Figure suggests that the angle of the slope is between 5° and 30°, Mallison does not specifically state the angle shown . However, Mallison discloses that the reactor discharge pipe 12 is configured so that the reaction solution overflow s by gravity from the reactor 1 to the collecting [precipitating] tank 13 , which maintain s a constant operating level of the reaction solution in the reactor 1 (see column 3, lines 24-26). One of ordinary skill in the engineering art would have recognized that the rate at which the reaction solution overflows by gravity from the reactor 1 t o the collecti ng [precipitating] tank 13 depends on the angle of the slope of the reactor discharge pipe 12 , where a steeper slope of the reactor discharge pipe 12 would be expected to deliver the reaction solution at a faster rate to the collecting [precipitating] tank 13 , relative to a flatter slope. Therefore, the specific angle of the slope of the reactor discharge pipe is not considered to confer patentability to the claim since the precise angle would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to routinely optimize the angle of the slope of the reactor discharge pipe 12 in the system of Mallison to obtain the desired overflow rate of the reaction solution from the reactor 1 to the collect ing [precipitating] tank 13 , and where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Regarding claim 6, the specific operating temperature of the precipitation tank is considered a process limitation . However, Mallison discloses that , if desired, further polymerization can occur in the collecti ng [precipitating] tank 13 (see column 8, lines 21-25). Mallison further discloses that polymerization should be carried out at substantially constant temperature, wherein a suitable temperature is within the range of about 20 °C to about 70 °C (at column 7, lines 65-74). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further provide a means for maintaining the collecti ng [precipitating] tank 13 at a predetermined operating temperature, such as a n operating temperature within the recited range , in the system of Mallison because a substantially constant polymerization temperature should be maintained in order to obtain satisfactory results . R egarding claim 8, Mallison discloses that the collecti ng [precipitating] tank 13 comprises a discharge pipe 16 formed in a side portion of the tank at a height at which a supernatant can form, such that the discharge pipe is able to discharge the supernatant from the tank . Mallison also discloses that the material in the collecting [precipitating] tank 13 can be “run off into another vessel” (see column 3, lines 26-28), such as for the purpose of monomer recover y ( see column 3, lines 32-36). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further provide a storage vessel (another vessel) for receiving and storing supernatant discharged from the collecting [precipitating] tank 13 in the system of Mallison because the storage vessel could be used to recover the unconverted monomer. Regarding claim 9, the specific operating pressure of the storage container is considered a process limitation that does not patentably distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art . In any event, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the storage container to operate at a pressure that was lower than the pressure of the collecting [precipitating] tank 13 in the system of Mallison because the examiner takes Official notice that it is well-known in the art that liquids are induced to flow from regions of higher pressure to regions of lower pressure, and by providing a lower pressure at the storage container, the flow of liquid ( supernatant ) to the storage container w ould be facilitated. Regarding claim 10, as stated above, the specific operating pressure of the storage container is considered a process limitation that does not patentably distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art. Regarding claim 11, Mallison (see Figure) discloses a collecti ng [precipitating] tank discharge pipe 16 that is connected from the collecting [precipitating] tank 13 to the storage container ( i.e., the another vessel, not shown); wherein the collecting [precipitating] tank discharge pipe 16 is formed in a side portion of the collecting [precipitating] t ank 13 at a height where a supernatant is able to form in the collecting [precipitating] tank 13 . Regarding claim 12, Mallison does not specifically state that the collecting [precipitating] tank discharge pipe 16 includes a control valve. However, Mallison (see Figure) discloses a control valve being provided on a nother discharge pipe (at the bottom) of the collecting [precipitating] tank 13 . Mallison further discloses that the collecting [precipitating] tank 13 is intended to be used in a manner such that material can be held within the collecting [precipitating] tank 13 for a predetermined period time, or else run off into another vessel via the collecti ng [precipitating] tank discharge pipe 16 (see column 3, lines 26-27). Th erefore , it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further include a control valve in the collecting [precipitating] tank discharge pipe 16 in the system of Mallison because the examiner takes Official notice that the use of control valves for controlling the flow of liquids through pipes was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the engineering art, and the control valve would have enabled the flow of liquid (supernatant) through the collecting [precipitating] tank discharge pipe 16 to be controlled, so that the flow was prevented when it was desired to hold the liquid in the collecting [precipitating] tank 13 for a predetermined period of time , or the flow was permitted when it was desired to run off the liquid into another vessel (i.e., to the storage tank , for monomer recovery ) . Regarding claim 13, Mallison (see Figure) discloses that the collecting [precipitating] tank discharge pipe 16 is provided at a position lower than a height at which the reactor discharge pipe 12 is connected to the collecting [precipitating] tank 13 . Co nclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : Wang et al. (US 2013/0090508 A1) , Sheldon (US 3,012,024 A) , and Chinh (US 5,929,180 A ) are cited to further illustrate the state of the art. * * * Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JENNIFER A LEUNG whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1449 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 9:30 AM - 4:30 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT CLAIRE X WANG can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1051 . 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. /JENNIFER A LEUNG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774