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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-10, in the reply filed on 13 April 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that that ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene is a same corresponding technical feature, and that a serious burden has not been shown. This is not found persuasive because the common technical feature, ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene, is known in the art, and is therefore not a special technical feature, and the requirement of showing a serious burden (based on MPEP 803) is not applicable to restrictions under unity of invention. Examiner notes that the limitations to be searched in Group I are entirely different from those of Group II, apart from their relation to ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 11-13 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 13 April 2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 objected to because of the following informalities: the term applied to the tanks used in the reactor are not consistently recited, being variously recited as “ethylene slurry polymerization reaction tanks,” “polymerization reaction tanks,” or “reaction tanks” throughout the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “two to six”, and the claim also recites “preferably three or four” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. This ground of rejection applies to claim 1 and dependent claims 2 and 5-10, but not to claims 3 and 4.
Claim 2 recites the broad recitation “an alkane solvent having a boiling point ranging from 0°C to 90°C and also “preferably an alkane solvent having a boiling point ranging from 25°C to 82°C”.
Claim 2 recites the broad recitation “a mixed alkane solvent having a saturated vapor pressure at 20°C ranging from 4 Kpa to 200 KPa” and also “preferably . . . a mixed alkane solvent having a saturated vapor pressure at 20°C ranging from 30 Kpa to 160 KPa”.
Claim 2 recites the broad recitation “the polymerization temperature ranges from 40°C to 100°C,” and also “preferably from 50°C to 90°C”.
Claim 2 recites the broad recitation “the polymerization pressure ranges from 0.2 MPa to 4.0 MPa” and also “preferably from 1.0 MPa to 3.0 MPa” and “more preferably from 2.0 MPa to 3.0 MPa”.
Claim 2 recites the broad recitation “the comonomer concentration by volume ranges from 0% to 5%” and also “preferably from 0% to 3%”.
Claim 2 recites the broad recitation “the slurry concentration . . . ranges for 50 g to 500 g . . . “ and also “preferably from 100 g to 400 g . . .”.
Claim 2 recites the broad recitation “the residence time . . . ranges from 0.1 hour to 6 hours” and also “preferably from 0.5 hour to 4.0 hours”.
Claim 6 recites the broad recitation “one or more selected from C3-C10 alpha-olefins” and “preferably one or more selected from propene . . . “.
Claim 7 recites the broad recitation “one or more selected from metallocene catalysts, non-metallocene catalysts, and Zeigler-Natta type catalysts,” and also “preferably one or more selected from supported metallocene catalysts, non-metallocene catalysts and Zeigler-Natta type catalysts”.
Claim 9 recites the broad recitation “methyl aluminoxane, ethyl aluminoxane, iso-butyl aluminoxane, and n-butyl aluminoxane” and also “preferably . . . methyl aluminoxane and iso-butyl aluminoxane”.
Claim 9 recites the broad recitation “trimethyl aluminum, triethyl aluminum .. . “ and also “preferably . . . trimethyl aluminum . . . “, a narrower statement, and “more preferably . . . triethyl aluminum . . . :.
Claim 9 recites the broad recitation “monochlorodimethyl aluminum, dichloromethylaluminum, . . . :, and also “preferably one or more selected from monochlorodimethylaluminum . . .”, and also “further preferably one or more selected from monochlorodimethylaluminum . . .”, which are narrower statements of the range.
Claim 10 recites the broad recitation “the concentration . . . ranges from 0.001 mmol to 0.100 mmol per liter . . . “ and the narrower limitation “preferably from 0.0005 mmol to 0.050 mmol per liter . . .”.
Claim 10 recites the broad limitation “the molar ratio . . . is 20-200:1”, and the narrower limitation “preferably 30-100:1”.
The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For the purposes of applying prior art, the broader limitation will be used.
Claim 1 recites “the slurry” in line 20. There is no antecedent basis for this recitation; “slurry polymerization” in the preamble does not positively set forth a slurry in each polymerization tank, and the term “slurry polymerization reaction tanks” is not interpreted to inherently contain a slurry. This ground applies to claims 2-10.
Claim 1 recites “each of subsequent polymerization reaction tanks” at line 11 and 15 and 17, and “each polymerization reaction tank”. It is unclear whether this refers to the previously recited ethylene slurry polymerization reaction tanks. The Office recommends using definite articles with each of these instances.
Claim 1 also recites that the deviation between the polymerization temperature of each subsequent polymerization reaction tank and that of the first polymerization reaction tank does not exceed ± 8%. Since different temperature scales have different zero points, this limitation is indefinite unless a temperature scale is recited. The Office recommends reciting the temperature scale for this limitation. This rejection applies to dependent claims 3-10, but not to claim 2.
Claims 2, 5, and 10 each recite “the polymerization solvent”. There is no antecedent basis for this limitation, as claim 1 recites no solvent.
Claim 3 recites “the overflow port”. This limitation lacks antecedent basis. It is also unclear whether “the polymerization slurry” refers to the “slurry” recited in claim 1. This rejection applies to claims 3 and 4.
Claim 4 recites “the slurry intermediate tank to which the polymerization slurry from the last polymerization reaction tank goes” is unclear as to whether claim 4 now requires a slurry intermediate tank, which is optional for claim 3.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objections and rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art, including US 2009/0163679 and JP 2003-064225 A, teach multireactor slurry polymerization process for ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene. US 2009/0163679 does not teach or suggest the hydrogen free atmosphere as recited, nor the specific control of parameters. JP 2003-064225 A teaches a process in two reactors with no hydrogen, but does not teach control of the temperature, pressure and composition within the parameters recited by claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KREGG T BROOKS whose telephone number is (313)446-4888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9 am to 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, Arrie Reuther can be reached at (571)270-7026. 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.
/KREGG T BROOKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights