DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
This action is responsive to national-stage application filed 05/26/2023. Following entry of the concurrently filed preliminary amendment, 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 . However, 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 a 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.
Information Disclosure Statement(s)
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) filed on 05/26/2023, 01/18/2024, 12/03/2024 and 08/15/2025 and 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 – Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: (i) referring to page 18, insertion of the section heading –Brief Description of the Drawings-- at line 7 (preceding “Fig. 1 shows …”) is recommended, see 37 CFR 1.77(b); and (ii) at page 19, the second occurrence of “(3)” should read –(1)-- (i.e., catalyst preparation vessel (1); cf., p. 19, line 3 and Fig. 1).
Appropriate correction of the specification is required.
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 4, 5, 7, and 13 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 Claims 4-5, the claims each provide the limitation to “the second catalyst preparation vessel” (see Cl. 4, lines 3-4; Cl. 5, lines 6-9). There is no proper and sufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in either claim nor in any claim from which they depend (currently, claim 1).
Regarding Claim 7, the provides the limitations to “the second catalyst preparation vessel” and “the second catalyst feed vessel” (see, final two lines). There is no proper and sufficient antecedent basis for either limitation in the claim nor in any claim from which claim 7 depends (currently, claim 1).
Regarding Claim 13, the expression “polymer obtainable by a process according to claim 11” renders the claim indefinite because almost any variation in any parameter within the scope of the claimed process would alter the polymer produced. In consequence, one who made or used a polymer made by a process other than the process recited in the claim would have to produce polymers using all possible parameters within the scope of claim 11 – a practical impossibility – and then extensively analyze each product to determine if his product was obtainable by a process within the claimed process. A claim is indefinite if undue experimentation is involved to determine the boundaries of protection. Ex parte Tanksley, 26 USPQ2d 1389. This rationale is applicable to the present case in view of the extensive testing that would be involved in ascertaining whether a polymer made by a process different to that claimed is nevertheless obtainable by the claimed process. This aspect of the rejection may be obviated by amending claim 13 to recite –obtained—in lieu of “obtainable”.
Common Ownership Notice
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 Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 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, 3-7, 11-13, 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al (US 2020/0002451 A1) (‘Jiang’) in view of Elovainio et al (EP 1671697 A1) (‘Elovainio’).
Regarding Claim 1, reference to Jiang has already disclosed a process for feeding a polymerization catalyst into a polymerization reactor (¶¶ [0012]-[0014]), said process comprising the steps of:
(i) forming a catalyst slurry comprising oil and a solid catalyst component in a first catalyst preparation vessel (Fig. 2 – shows continuous catalyst feed system for catalyst suspension; ¶ [0057] -Purified aliphatic hydrocarbon solvent in solvent vessel (3) is transferred into a catalyst preparation tank (2). Homogeneous single-site catalyst and optionally activator is also charged into the catalyst preparation tank (2) in dry powder form; and ¶ [0060] - In any embodiment, the catalysts and activators can be suspended in a high viscosity aliphatic hydrocarbon solvent (or “oil”) prior to introduction into the polymerization feed and/or reactor);
(ii) transferring the catalyst slurry from the first catalyst preparation vessel to a first catalyst feed vessel (Fig. 2 and ¶ [0057] - catalyst suspension is then transferred into the catalyst delivery/storage tank (1));
(iii) maintaining the catalyst slurry in the first catalyst feed vessel in a homogeneous state (¶ [0057]- catalyst suspension is continuously metered from the catalyst delivery/storage tank (1) into the polymerization reactor …; and ¶ [0069] - Also disclosed is the use of an oil or wax suspension of homogeneous single-site catalyst to a solution polymerization process);
(iv) withdrawing a portion of the catalyst slurry from the first catalyst feed vessel, and introducing the withdrawn portion of the catalyst slurry into a polymerization reactor (¶ [0061] - catalyst suspension can be passed to the polymerization reactor on a continuous basis or at periodic intervals).
The teachings of Jiang differ from the claimed subject matter in that Jiang fails to disclose: (I) wherein the oil has a dynamic viscosity of from 25 to 1500 mPa*s at the conditions within the first catalyst preparation vessel and the first catalyst feed vessel and (II) wherein the catalyst slurry is transferred along a substantially vertical path downwards from the first catalyst feed vessel to the reactor.
However, as to (I), Jiang does teach that, in any embodiment, the catalysts and activators can be suspended in a high viscosity aliphatic hydrocarbon solvent (or “oil”) prior to introduction into the polymerization feed and/or reactor (¶ [0060]). Jiang notes that the main purpose of using an oil is to avoid catalyst/activator powder or powder from settling within the mixture in the catalyst holding vessel, delivery/storage tank and feed lines (id.). Jiang further teaches an embodiment wherein the preferred oils have a kinematic viscosity at 40oC in a range of 2, or 20, or 50, or 100 to 1000, or 1400, or 1600, or 1800, or 2000 cSt as measured according to ASTM D 445 (id.). Notably, the disclosed ranges fully embrace the Applicant’s preferred range for kinematic viscosity of the oil in the catalyst slurry, viz., 65-75 mm2/s (cf., Spec., page 5, lines 1-2) even though Jiang does not characterize the oil in terms of a dynamic viscosity. Nevertheless, in analogous art drawn to a process for producing olefin polymers in the presence of an olefin polymerization catalyst, Elovainio teaches forming a catalyst slurry in a catalyst feed vessel comprising an oil and a solid polymerization catalyst component; maintaining the slurry in the catalyst feed vessel in a homogeneous state; continuously withdrawing a portion of the catalyst slurry from the catalyst feed vessel and introducing the withdrawn slurry into a polymerization reactor; and continuously introducing at least one olefin monomer into the polymerization reactor (¶ [0008]).
According to Elovainio, best results are obtained if the dynamic viscosity of the oil is from 20 to 3000 mPa.s at the operating temperature of the catalyst feed vessel, preferably from 20 to 1500 mPa-s and more preferably from 30 to 990 mPa-s, when measured at the operating temperature of the feed vessel (¶ [0025]). Moreover, Elovainio in Example 1 demonstrates forming the catalyst slurry using an oil having a dynamic viscosity of 57 mPa-s, a value squarely within the claimed range for oil dynamic viscosity (cf., claim 1). Elovainio teaches that the disclosed method is useful in feeding the catalysts, including metallocene catalysts, into the polymerization reactor with a high accuracy and no capacity problems, e.g., due to poor settling (¶¶ [0012], [0018]).
Given that Jiang’s main purpose in using an oil is to avoid catalyst/activator powder from settling within the mixture in the catalyst holding vessel, delivery/storage tank and feed lines (¶ [0060]), one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected an oil having a dynamic viscosity as taught by Elovainio to be eminently suitable to such purpose. Accordingly, at the time of effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Jiang by forming the catalyst suspension from an oil having a dynamic viscosity as per Elovainio, such as a dynamic viscosity of 57 mPa-s, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Further as to (II), it is noted that Jiang generally discloses to provide in any embodiment of the disclosed process, a polymerization reactor having a catalyst feed line fluidly connected thereto, with no restriction on location of the reactor relative to the catalyst feed line (¶ [0065]). It is contended that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have implicitly recognized and appreciated that locating the catalyst feed line above the polymerization reactor would allow for a gravitational flow effect to aid in the transfer of catalyst suspension (slurry) from the catalyst delivery/storge tank of Jiang to the polymerization reactor. And as this effect would have been regarded by those of ordinary skill as beneficial in facilitating the feeding of catalyst slurry to the reactor, it would have been obvious to one so skilled at the time of effective filing to further modify the process of Jiang by re-locating the polymerization reactor such that the catalyst slurry can be transferred along a substantially vertical path downwards from the catalyst delivery/storge tank of Jiang to the polymerization reactor, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 3, Jiang in view of Elovainio renders obvious the process according to claim 1 as discussed above. Jiang further discloses the process comprising a second catalyst preparation vessel (Fig. 2 and ¶ [0057] – catalyst preparation tank (4)), a first catalyst feed vessel and a second catalyst feed vessel (id. - catalyst delivery/storage tank (1), catalyst delivery/storage tank (5)), wherein the catalyst slurry of the first catalyst preparation vessel is transferred to the first catalyst feed vessel via a first catalyst transfer line and the catalyst slurry (id.- catalyst suspensions of catalyst/preparation tank (2) and catalyst preparation tank (4) transferred respectively to catalyst delivery/storage tank (1) and catalyst delivery/storage tank (5)).
Regarding Claim 4, Jiang in view of Elovainio renders obvious the process according to claim 1 as discussed above. Jiang further discloses wherein the catalyst slurry from the first catalyst feed vessel and/or the second catalyst feed vessel is transferred into the polymerization reactor by using
at least one valveless piston pump (Fig. 2 and ¶ [0057] - catalyst slurry from catalyst delivery/storage tank (1) and from catalyst delivery/storage tank (5) transferred respectively into polymerization reactor using feed pumps (7) and (6)).
Regarding Claims 5/18, Jiang in view of Elovainio renders obvious the process according to claim 1 as discussed above. Jiang further discloses wherein the oil is white oil (¶ [0084] (Example 12)) and Elovainio teaches wherein oil has a dynamic viscosity of from 30 to 1500 mPa-s, specifically 57 mPa-s (Example 1).
Regarding Claim 6, Jiang in view of Elovainio renders obvious the process according to claim 1 as discussed above. Jiang further discloses wherein the catalyst is selected from metallocene catalysts (¶¶ [0036]-[0037]).
Regarding Claim 7, Jiang in view of Elovainio renders obvious the process according to claim 1 as discussed above. Jiang further discloses wherein the transport from the first catalyst preparation vessel to the first catalyst feed vessel and/or from the second catalyst preparation vessel to the second catalyst feed vessel is done batchwise (¶ [0061] - the catalyst suspension can be passed to the polymerization reactor on a continuous basis or at periodic intervals (the latter implying a batchwise transport/delivery of the catalyst suspension).
Regarding Claim 11, Jiang in view of Elovainio renders obvious the process according to claim 1 as discussed above. Jiang further discloses a process for producing olefin polymer in a polymerization reactor comprising the steps of feeding the polymerization catalyst into the polymerization reactor by using the process of claim 1 (¶ [0012] - process comprising … passing a homogeneous single-site catalyst to a solution polymerization reactor in the form of a suspension in an aliphatic hydrocarbon, oil, or wax; contacting the catalyst with one or more α-olefin monomers; and recovering a polyolefin).
Regarding Claim 12, Jiang in view of Elovainio renders obvious the process according to claim 11 as discussed above. Jiang further discloses the process for producing olefin polymer in a polymerization reactor according to claim 11 comprising the steps of:
(i) continuously introducing at least one olefin monomer into the polymerization reactor (¶ [0061]);
(ii) optionally, continuously introducing diluent and/or hydrogen into the polymerization reactor (¶ [0071]);
(iii) operating the polymerization reactor in such conditions that the at least one olefin monomer is polymerized by the polymerization catalyst to form a reaction mixture containing the catalyst, unreacted monomer(s), formed polymer and optionally diluent and/or hydrogen (¶ [0074]); and
(iv) optionally, withdrawing a portion of the reaction mixture from the polymerization reactor (¶ [0078]).
Regarding Claim 13, Jiang in view of Elovainio renders obvious the process according to claim 11 as discussed above. Jiang further discloses olefin polymer obtainable by the process according to claim 11 (¶¶ [0079]-[0080]).
Regarding Claim 16, Jiang in view of Elovainio renders obvious the process according to claim 1 as discussed above. Jiang further discloses wherein the withdrawing comprises continuously withdrawing the catalyst slurry from the first catalyst feed vessel (¶ [0061] - the catalyst suspension can be passed to the polymerization reactor on a continuous basis or at periodic intervals).
Regarding Claims 19-20, Jiang in view of Elovainio renders obvious the process according to claim 5 as discussed above. Elovainio further discloses (cols. 12-13, Example 1) wherein the concentration of the catalyst in the slurry is between 15 and 30 wt. % (for claim 19), or between 20 and 25 wt. % (for claim 20); in particular, a catalyst slurry containing 22.6% by weight solids (implying a 22.6 wt. % concentration of solid catalyst in the slurry).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang in view of Elovainio et al (EP 1671697 A1) (‘Elovainio’) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Burns et al (US 2004/0122188 A1) (‘Burns’).
Regarding Claim 9, Jiang in view of Elovainio renders obvious the process according to claim 3 as discussed above. Neither reference discloses claimed step of monitoring the level of the catalyst slurry by means of a level sensor in the first catalyst feed vessel and the second catalyst feed vessel. However, in analogous art drawn to a process and apparatus to preparing and providing a catalyst slurry to a polymerization reactor (¶ [0002]), Burns discloses (¶ [0026], Fig. 1) a polymerization apparatus (10) including a catalyst slurry feeding assembly. The apparatus (10) includes a mixing tank (14) where a batch of catalyst is mixed with diluent to prepare catalyst slurry for a polymerization reactor (42). The mixing tank (14) is fluidly connected to storage tanks (or run tanks) (18) by first conduits (22), which may have valves (44). The storage tanks (18) are each fluidly connected to a pump (26) by a second conduit (30) and each pump (26) is in turn fluidly connected to the polymerization reactor (42) by a lead-in pipe (34) which is a fluid passage to the reactor (42). Burns further teaches an embodiment wherein a controller (92) measures the amount of catalyst slurry in a storage tank (18) with a level indicator (90) and signals a valve (44) to open such that the storage tank (18) is resupplied from the mixing tank (14) (¶¶ [0030], [0038]; Fig. 1). Burns thus teaches to monitor (via controller (92)) the level of the catalyst slurry by means of a level indicator (i.e., sensor) in the first catalyst feed vessel (first storage tank (18)) and the second catalyst feed vessel (second storage tank (18)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the process of Jiang by applying the measurement system of Burns to the catalyst suspension tanks (Fig. 2: 1, 5) in order to similarly monitor the amount of catalyst suspension present in each tank and regulate resupply from the corresponding catalyst preparation tanks (Fig. 2: 2, 4).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al (US 2020/0002451 A1) (‘Jiang’) in view of Elovainio et al (EP 1671697 A1) (‘Elovainio’) as applied to claim 5 above, and further as evidenced by Sonneborn Material Safety Data Sheet for White Mineral Oil RUDOL (‘Sonneborn MSDS’).
Regarding Claim 17, Jiang in view of Elovainio renders obvious the process according to claim 5 as discussed above. As noted, Jiang discloses wherein the oil is white oil, specifically “white mineral oil (available from Sonneborn, Parsippany, N.J.)” (¶ [0084]). Jiang does not directly teach that the white mineral oil is food approved. However, the Sonneborn MSDS provides evidence that the white mineral oil RUDOL is typically used in a variety of applications including food and general industries (see Section 1.2). This evidence is fairly considered as indicating the white mineral oil disclosed by Jiang is food approved as per claim 17, and would be so recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al (US 2020/0002451 A1) (‘Jiang’).
Regarding Claim 14, reference to Jiang has already disclosed a catalyst slurry feeding system for producing olefin polymers in a polymerization reactor comprising:
a first catalyst preparation vessel for forming a catalyst slurry comprising oil and a solid catalyst component (Fig. 2 – catalyst suspension preparation vessel (2, 4); ¶ [0057] -Purified aliphatic hydrocarbon solvent in solvent vessel (3) is transferred into a catalyst preparation tank (2). Homogeneous single-site catalyst and optionally activator is also charged into the catalyst preparation tank (2) in dry powder form; and ¶ [0060] - In any embodiment, the catalysts and activators can be suspended in a high viscosity aliphatic hydrocarbon solvent (or “oil”) prior to introduction into the polymerization feed and/or reactor);
a first catalyst feed vessel for maintaining the catalyst slurry in a homogenous state (Fig. 2 – catalyst delivery/storage tank (1, 5) and ¶ [0069] - Also disclosed is the use of an oil or wax suspension of homogeneous single-site catalyst to a solution polymerization process);
a polymerization reactor (¶ [0065] – in any embodiment is a polymerization process comprising … providing a polymerization reactor having a catalyst feed line fluidly connected thereto);
a first transfer line connecting the first catalyst preparation vessel to the first catalyst feed vessel (Fig. 2 – line connecting catalyst preparation tank (2, 4) to catalyst delivery/storage tanks (1, 5));
a first feed line connecting the first catalyst feed vessel to the polymerization reactor (Fig. 2 – separate lines connecting each catalyst delivery/storage tank (1, 5) to “Polymerization reactor”);
wherein the first feed line is provided with a pump (Fig. 2 – line connecting each catalyst delivery/storage tank (1, 5) to “Polymerization reactor” provided with feed pump (7, 6)).
The teachings of Jiang differ from the claimed subject matter in that Jiang fails to disclose wherein the first catalyst feed vessel is located above the polymerization reactor. However, as discussed above concerning the corresponding process feature of claim 1, Jiang generally discloses providing in any embodiment of the disclosed process, a polymerization reactor having a catalyst feed line fluidly connected thereto, with no restriction on location of the reactor relative to the catalyst feed line (¶ [0065]). It is contended that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have implicitly recognized and appreciated that locating the catalyst feed vessel above the polymerization reactor would allow for a gravitational flow effect to aid in the transfer of catalyst suspension (slurry) from the catalyst delivery/storge tank of Jiang to the polymerization reactor. As this effect would have been regarded by those of ordinary skill as beneficial in facilitating the feeding of catalyst slurry to the reactor, it would have been obvious to one so skilled at the time of effective filing to modify the system of Jiang by re-locating the polymerization reactor such that the catalyst suspension delivery/storage tank is located above the polymerization reactor, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 15, Jiang renders obvious the system according to claim 14 as discussed above. Jiang further discloses wherein the system comprises a second catalyst preparation vessel (Fig. 2 and ¶ [0057] – catalyst preparation tank (4)) and wherein the first catalyst preparation vessel is connected to a first catalyst feed vessel via a first transfer line (id. - catalyst preparation tank (2) connected via first transfer line to catalyst delivery/storage tank (1)) and the second catalyst preparation vessel is connected to a second catalyst feed vessel via a second transfer line (id. - catalyst preparation tank (4) connected via second transfer line to catalyst delivery/storage tank (5).
Claim Rejection – 35 U.S.C. 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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Leskinen et al (EP 3241611 A1) (‘Leskinen’).
Regarding Claim 14, reference to Leskinen has already disclosed a catalyst slurry feeding system for producing olefin polymers in a polymerization reactor comprising:
a first catalyst preparation vessel for forming a catalyst slurry comprising oil and a solid catalyst component (¶ [0075] and Fig. 1 – catalyst mixing vessel (3));
a first catalyst feed vessel for maintaining the catalyst slurry in a homogenous state (id., catalyst feed vessels (4) and ¶¶ [0055] and [0077] – catalyst feed slurry, either homogeneous or settled, is withdrawn from the bottom of the operating catalyst feed vessel (4));
a polymerization reactor (¶ [0077] – combined stream (of catalyst slurry stream from (4) and reactor feed stream (6)) is then passed to the polymerization reactor (7));
first transfer line connecting the first catalyst preparation vessel to the first catalyst feed vessel (Fig. 1 – line connecting catalyst mixing vessel (3) to each of catalyst feed vessels (4));
a first feed line connecting the first catalyst feed vessel to the polymerization reactor (Fig. 1 – separate lines connecting each catalyst feed vessel (4) to polymerization reactor (7));
wherein the first feed line is provided with a pump (¶ [0005] -catalyst slurry transferred by using a valveless piston pump from the catalyst feed vessel into the polymerization reactor); and
wherein the first catalyst feed vessel is located above the polymerization reactor (Fig. 1 and [0005] – catalyst slurry is transferred along a substantially vertical path downwards from the feed vessel to the reactor).
As noted above, claim 14 includes a recitation that the first catalyst preparation vessel is “for forming a catalyst slurry comprising oil and a solid catalyst component”; whereas Leskinen describes preparing the catalyst slurry in a mixing vessel into which solid catalyst component and diluent are introduced (¶ [0046]) and does not mention inclusion of oil. Nevertheless, this recitation is directed to an intended manner of using the claimed system (apparatus) or to the contents thereof during an intended operation, which are not germane to the patentability of the system itself. That is, the recitation does not expressly or impliedly require any structure in addition to that described in Leskinen. Thus, the described catalyst feeding system possesses the structural elements of the Applicant’s system as claimed, any difference resides in the manner in which the system is to be used, and the manner in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself. See, MPEP 2115 and In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967).
Claim Rejection – 35 U.S.C. 102/103
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.
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Elovainio et al (EP 1671697 A1) (‘Elovainio’).
Regarding Claim 13, the claim is drawn to an olefin polymer “obtainable” by the process according to claim 11. Reference to Elovainio has already disclosed olefin polymer produced by polymerizing in the presence of a catalyst slurry comprising a solid catalyst component suspended in an oil having a dynamic viscosity of 57 mPa· s (see ¶¶ [0063]-[0064] (Example 1) as well as ¶ [0025]); this value falling well within the claimed range for oil dynamic viscosity (cf., claim 1, upon which claim 13 ultimately depends). While it is acknowledged that the disclosed polymer was obtained by a process different to the catalyst feeding process used to produce the claimed olefin polymer, it is well settled that product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps (MPEP 2113, quoting In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). This is especially so in the absence of any evidence in the record demonstrating that the Applicant’s claimed polymer product necessarily differs substantially from Elovainio’s polymer as a result of feeding the polymerization catalyst into the polymerization reactor by using the process of claim 1. Accordingly, the burden properly shifts to the Applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 195 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Perry (US 3780135) is cited as pertinent to a catalyst slurry feeding system wherein a catalyst feed vessel (dispersion zone 2) is located above polymerization reaction zones (9. 10) (note figure). Perry does not teach the present invention, especially claimed step of forming a catalyst slurry comprising oil and a solid catalyst component in a first catalyst preparation vessel, or claimed system wherein a first feed line connecting the first catalyst feed vessel to the polymerization reactor is provided with a pump.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2/8 and 10 are objected to as being dependent on a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 2 (on which claim 8 directly depends), the closest prior art to Jiang et al and Burns et al, discussed above, does not describe the claimed invention, especially the requirement that the catalyst slurry from the second catalyst preparation vessel is transferred to the first catalyst feed vessel via a first catalyst transfer line. In this regard, the relevant teachings of the respective references only provide embodiments wherein the catalyst suspension/slurry from second catalyst preparation tank is transferred to a catalyst delivery/storage tank distinct from the one in which the catalyst suspension/slurry from first catalyst preparation tank is transferred (Jiang, ¶ [0057], Fig. 2) or to a second storage tank (18) (Burns, ¶ [0043]).
Regarding Claim 10, the closest prior art to Burns et al does not describe the claimed invention, especially the requirement for stopping the withdrawal of the catalyst slurry from one of the first catalyst feed vessel and the second catalyst feed vessel, and starting the withdrawal of the catalyst slurry from the other one of the first catalyst feed vessel and the second catalyst feed vessel in response to the signal from the level sensor. In this regard, the relevant teachings of Burns et al only describe monitoring the amount of catalyst slurry in a storage tank (18) via controller (92) with a level indicator (90) and signaling a valve (44) to open so that the storage tank (18) can be resupplied from the mixing tank (14) (¶ [0038]; Fig. 1). Furthermore, neither Jiang et al nor Burns et al is found to provide proper rationale for modifying their respective inventions into the invention of any of instant claims 2/8 or 10.
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/12-23-25
.