DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oliveira et al. (US 2022/0097348) in view of Nelson et al. (U.S. Pat. 8,647,550).
Regarding claim 1: Oliveira et al. teaches a process comprising injecting/adding an additive into a molten polymer, solvent, and unreacted monomer (end of para. 111). The stream is introduced into a hopper/Kenics static mixing element (para. 11). A mixture of the molten polymer and additive is withdrawn/separated from the solvent and unreacted monomer (para. 112) and is extruded into a polymer extrudate/pellet (para. 112). Oliveira et al. teaches the molten polymer and monomer flows from a reactor loop into a “zone”, which reads on the hopper. Inside the zone/hopper, it is contacted/injected with various additives (para. 111). Since the additives are added to the existing molten polymer and monomer stream within the zone/hopper, there is an inlet device to add the two streams together.
Oliveira et al. does not clearly teach that the liquid diluent/solvent is added with the polymer additive. However, Nelson et al. teaches a similar process in which the additive is added with a liquid comprising water (abstract). Oliveira et al. and Nelson et al. are analogous art since they are both concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely polymer melt additive processes. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add the liquid diluent/solvent/water mixture with the additive to the molten polymer as in Nelson et al. in the process of Oliveira et al. and would have been motivated to do so since Nelson et al. teaches the quality of mixing and functionality of the resulting blend may depend on the physical properties of the additive mixture.
Regarding claim 3: Oliveira et al. teaches the effluent from the polymerization reactor exits the reactor loop and enters a zone, and additives are added to this zone (para. 111) and then goes through another set of Kenics static mixing elements (para. 111). The “zone” can be considered the inlet device.
Regarding claim 5: Oliveira et al. teaches a heat exchanger to raise the stream temperature to perform devolatilization of the lower boiling point components/vaporizes the liquid diluent (para. 112). The polymer is separated from the solvent and unreacted monomer (para. 112).
Regarding claims 7 and 8: Oliveira et al. teaches low density polyethylene (para. 7) and diluents having 5-10 carbon atoms and are alkanes/saturated hydrocarbons (para. 50).
Regarding claim 9: Oliveira et al. teaches an antioxidant (para. 111).
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oliveira et al. (US 2022/0097348) in view of Nelson et al. (U.S. Pat. 8,647,550) as applied to claims 1 and 3 set forth above and in view of Bigiavi et al. (US 2005/0234217).
Regarding claim 4: Oliveira et al. teaches the basic claimed process as set forth above. Not disclosed is the molten polymer pool. However, Bigiavi et al. teaches a similar process in which the polymer melt settles downwards in an empty volatilizer/pool (para. 40). Oliveira et al. and Bigiavi et al. are analogous art since they are both concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely polyolefin production and removing unreacted monomers. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the pool of Bigiavi et al. in the process of Oliveira et al. and would have been motivated to do so since Bigiavi et al. teaches this step helps separate further the amount of unreacted monomer (para. 40).
Regarding claim 6: Oliveira et al. teaches the basic claimed process as set forth above. Not disclosed is the vapor liquid gravity separator. However, Bigiavi et al. teaches separating the polymer melt from the vaporized components via a gravity separator (para. 40). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the gravity separator of Bigiavi et al. in the process of Oliveira et al. and would have been motivated to do so since Bigiavi et al. teaches that additional volatile components are released away during the vertical drop.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 19, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that the inlet device of Oliveira et al. is not positioned inside the hopper is not persuasive. Oliveira et al. teaches the monomer and molten polymer exit the reactor loop and enters a “zone”. This zone reads on the claimed hopper. In the zone, the above stream is contacted with additives (para. 111). Therefore, the inlet of the additives takes place within the hopper.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Megan McCulley whose telephone number is (571)270-3292. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5:30.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/MEGAN MCCULLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights