DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
This action is responsive to national-stage application filed 05/31/2023. The concurrently filed preliminary amendment is acknowledged. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and under examination herein.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement(s)
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) filed on 05/31/23, 06/27/2024, 09/19/2024, 12/19/2024, 02/26/2025, 07/29/2025 and 08/29/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609, and therefore the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits. Initialed copies of the IDS are included with the mailing/transmittal of this Office action.
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Objection – Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated, as indicated on page 8, line 4 herein. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawing(s) 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.
Objection – Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
i) Referring to page 11, fourth full paragraph, the reference to “(2b)” should read –(2a)-- as it is the first secondary product stream that is polymerized in GPR1 (cf., Fig. 3).
ii) Referring to page 12, the table header should read –GPR2-- instead of “GPR1” which is already mentioned in the table on page 11.
iii) Referring to Table 1 on page 18, it is noted that the various production rates (Total, Loop, GPR1, GPR2) and split percentages (Loop, GPR1, GPR2) reported in the last column are identical for Examples 1 and 2 notwithstanding their different reactor system configurations (i.e., Reactor configuration 2 vs. Reactor configuration 3, see pages 15-17). Clarification is required as to how the different configurations of the respective reactors can yield identical production rates and split percentages for the two inventive examples.
Appropriate correction of the specification is required.
Objection – Claims
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: referring to line 2, the phrase –or claim 3-- should be inserted after “claim 1” so as to agree with the subsequent references to “claim 1 or … claim 3” in lines 3-4. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim cannot depend upon any other multiple dependent claim. Note that claim 10, in reciting “any one of the preceding claims,” alternatively depends from claim 9, which is considered a multiple dependent claim as it refers to “step (d) of claim 1 or step (e) of claim 3” and to “step (e) of claim 1 or step (f) of claim 3.” See MPEP § 608.01(n).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 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 10 and 15-17 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 10, the claim is indefinite as inconsistent with independent claims 1 and 3, upon which it alternatively depends, in regards to origin of “said 1st product stream”. Note that whereas claim 10 recites “said 1st product stream … is withdrawn from the slurry reactor,” both independent claims refer to “a 1st product stream” as being provided by “concentrating” as per step (c), rather than being withdrawn from the slurry reactor. Clarification and appropriate correction are required.
Regarding Claim 15, the claim is confusing and inconsistent in first reciting “(B) a separation vessel for concentrating at least a part of the polymer slurry withdrawn from the slurry reactor by removing a part of the fluid phase to provide a 1st product stream …” and then referring to “the 1st product stream withdrawn from the slurry reactor” (cf., lines 9-10 and 15-16). For purposes of substantive examination, it is presumed the 1st product stream originates from the separation vessel, per recited step (B), and not the slurry reactor; however, clarification and appropriate correction are required. Dependent claims 16-17 inherit the indefiniteness ascribed to the parent claim above.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Foster (US 4740550) is cited as pertinent to a multistage, continuous process for the preparation of propylene-ethylene impact copolymers, comprising the use of a recirculating pipe-loop reactor for homopolymerizing propylene, a cyclone separator for removing fines, a gas-phase fluidized bed reactor for additional propylene homopolymerization, and a gas-phase fluidized bed reactor for propylene/ethylene copolymerization (note Abs., FIG. 1). The citation does not teach the present invention, especially a process for producing alpha-olefin polymers in the presence of a polymerization catalyst in a continuously operating multistage polymerization sequence, comprising a step of polymerizing a 3rd product stream withdrawn from the slurry reactor, in the presence of alpha-olefin monomers and optionally one or more alpha-olefin co-monomers in a GPR2 to obtain a 2nd alpha-olefin product stream; or a polymerization system comprising: a slurry reactor, a separation vessel, a GPR1 arranged downstream of the slurry reactor and a GPR2 arranged in parallel to the GPR1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8, 11-14 and 18-20 are allowed. Balance of the claims would be allowable if amended or rewritten to overcome the objections (re: claims 9, 10) and rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Pending claims are deemed to distinguish over the closest prior art to Vuorikari et al (EP 1415999 A1) and Alastalo et al (EP 3480220 A1).
Alastalo et al is directed to multi-reactor configurations for producing polypropylene copolymer and to processes for producing polypropylene copolymers (¶ [0001]. In one embodiment (¶ [0017]), the configuration includes a first loop reactor (R1) and two GPRs (R2, R3) placed in parallel and both downstream from the loop reactor (Fig. 3). The reactor R1 is coupled with the inlets of both reactors R2 and R3, necessitating the splitting of the reaction product obtained from R1 into two streams which are respectively transferred into the reactors R2 and R3 (¶ [0018]). Apart from mentioning installation of a control valve or further means for controlling and also modifying the split into the two streams (¶ [0015]), Alastalo et al provide no details concerning treatment of the stream leaving the loop reactor and entering the GPRs.
The present invention differs from Alastalo et al at least in recited features of: a concentrating step (c) as per claim 1 or 3, a separation vessel (B) as per claim 13 or 15, and a GPR2 for polymerizing a 3rd product stream withdrawn from the slurry reactor, in the presence of alpha-olefin monomers and optionally one or more alpha-olefin co-monomers to obtain a 2nd alpha-olefin product stream as per step (e) of claim 1 or system element (D) of claim 13.
Vuorikari et al is directed to process and an apparatus for continuous polymerization of olefin monomers in a cascade of polymerization reactors, wherein an olefin monomer is polymerized first in slurry phase in an inert hydrocarbon diluent in at least one loop reactor and then, subsequently, in gas phase in at least one gas phase reactor (¶ [0001]). The slurry withdrawn from the loop reactor passes successively through a hydrocyclone and a flash unit before entering the gas phase reactor, with the aim of providing a concentrated slurry entering the gas phase reactor (¶¶ [0014]-[0016], Fig. 1).
The present invention differs from Vuorikari et al at least in recited features of a GPR2 for polymerizing a 3rd product stream withdrawn from the slurry reactor, in the presence of alpha-olefin monomers and optionally one or more alpha-olefin co-monomers to obtain a 2nd alpha-olefin product stream as per step (e) of claim 1 or system element (D) of claim 13, and a polymerization system comprising a GPR1 arranged downstream of the slurry reactor and a GPR2 arranged in parallel to the GPR1 as per claim 13 or 15.
Furthermore, neither Alastalo et al nor Vuorikari et al is found to provide proper rationale for modifying either of their respective inventions so as to arrive at the invention of any of pending claims 1-20.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Examiner F. M. Teskin whose telephone number is (571) 272-1116. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 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, Robert Jones, can be reached at (571) 270-7733. The appropriate fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/FRED M TESKIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
/FMTeskin/01-03-26