DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
This action follows a reply filed on 03/18/2026. Per the reply, the specification and claims 4-5, 7 and 14-15 have been amended; claim 13 has been cancelled. No new claim(s) have been added. Accordingly, claims 1-12 and 14-20 remain 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 .
Withdrawn Objection(s)/Rejection(s)
The prior art rejections of claims 14/15 (35 U.S.C. 103 over Jiang; 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Leskinen) have been reconsidered and are withdrawn in view of the amendment to independent claim 14. Further, the Applicant has addressed all outstanding formality issues by way of appropriate amendments to the specification and to claims 4-5 and 7, along with the cancellation of claim 13.
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, 11-12, 16 and 18-20 stand 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’).
The basis of the rejection and the Examiner’s position regarding the applied art are adequately set forth in the previous Office action (OA), and that explanation is incorporated herein by reference (see pages 5-10 of prior OA).
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang in view of Elovainio as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Burns et al (US 2004/0122188 A1) (‘Burns’).
The basis of the rejection and the Examiner’s position regarding the applied art are adequately set forth in the previous Office action (OA), and that explanation is incorporated herein by reference (see pages 10-11 of prior OA).
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang in view of Elovainio as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Sonneborn MSDS.
The basis of the rejection and the Examiner’s position regarding the applied art are adequately set forth in the previous Office action (OA), and that explanation is incorporated herein by reference (see pages 11-12 of prior OA).
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with respect to the repeated rejections.
Applicant first argues that Jiang does not teach that the catalyst feed vessel is located vertically above the polymerization reactor, thereby allowing the catalyst slurry to be fed along a substantially vertical downward path. (Reply at 9)
However, even granting this contention, it is well settled that the rationale to modify the prior art need not be expressly stated in the prior art, but may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law; see MPEP 2144 (I). Instantly, it is maintained that the common technical knowledge concerning gravitational flow principles would have led an ordinarily skilled artisan to expect that positioning the catalyst feed line above the polymerization reactor would allow for a gravitational flow effect to aid in the transfer of catalyst suspension (i.e., slurry) from the catalyst delivery/storage tank of Jiang to the polymerization reactor. The expected benefit of facilitating feeding of catalyst slurry to the reactor would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Jiang by re-locating the polymerization reactor such that the catalyst slurry is transferred along a substantially vertical path downwards from the catalyst delivery/storage tank of Jiang to the polymerization reactor, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Applicant next argues that Jiang's proposed measure for avoiding plugging of feed lines is to keep the catalyst dry before passing it to the polymerization reactor, citing paragraph [0064] (id.). This argument, however, focuses on one particular embodiment of Jiang to the exclusion of alternative embodiments disclosed therein. In particular, as noted in the prior OA, Jiang teaches 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; and 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 (¶ [0060]; emphasis added). As this argument fails to reflect the full scope of Jiang’s teachings, the Office finds the argument unpersuasive.
Applicant further argues that Jiang nowhere teaches or suggests that the positions of the catalyst preparation or feed vessels influence plugging. This argument is understood as an assertion that Jiang does not explicitly address the same problem confronted by the Applicant. However, even if the assertion is accepted, it is firmly established that the rationale for modifying a reference may differ from the Applicant’s; see MPEP 2144(IV). Here, the expected facilitation of the feeding of catalyst slurry to the polymerization reactor via a gravitational flow effect would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Jiang in the manner proposed above and in the prior OA.
Finally, Applicant argues that Elovainio fails to teach or suggest any solutions to avoid plugging, let alone by specifically positioning the feed vessel above the reactor (id.). However, the Office relies on Elovainio only for its teaching to form a catalyst slurry using an oil having a dynamic viscosity within the Applicant’s range for oil dynamic viscosity as recited in present claim 1. Further, since the proposed modification of Jiang involving positioning of the catalyst feed vessel above the polymerization reactor would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art from the common technical knowledge pertaining to gravitational flow effects, as discussed above, it is not necessary to the prima facie case that Elovainio teaches or suggestion such feature.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2/8 and 10 stand 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 reasons for indicating allowable subject matter in said claims are adequately set forth in the previous OA, and that explanation is incorporated herein by reference.
Claims 14-15 are allowed.
The closest prior art to Jiang and Elovainio, discussed above, does not describe the invention of said claims, especially claimed feature “wherein the location above the polymerization reactor [of the first catalyst feed vessel] denotes a position above the injection point of the respective reactor.” Furthermore, neither Jiang nor Elvainio is found to provide proper rationale for modifying their respective inventions into the invention of claim 14 or 15.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner 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/05-26-26
Prosecution Insights