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 .
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 the 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Helland (U.S. 20050131187).
Helland teaches polymerization of ethylene, butylene with hydrogen as a chain transfer catalyst in Example 2 ¶[0075-0077]. In particular, Helland exemplifies a loop-gas reactor system which uses a flash tank (i.e. flash separator) when transferring the solid polyolefin powder between the loop reactor and gas phase reactor. See ¶[0077].
For a more detailed account of the system (a Borstar system) that is reasonably suggested to be used by Helland in this example see ¶[0015] teaches anticipates the process steps of Claim 1 including the removal of hydrogen (a chain transfer agent). This removal of hydrogen by a separator is reasonably suggested to be happening by use of the flash tank of Helland in Example 2.
Therefore, based on ¶[0013-0015] and ¶[0075-0077] all process steps and the flash separators (as flash tanks) are anticipated in the process recited by Claim 1 and Claim 11 (as Claim 11 simply does not have the gas phase step of Claim 1).
The metallocene exemplified by Helland in Example 2 is a metallocene complex with MAO and silica support of Example 1 (¶[0073]) which anticipates the metallocene of Claim 1, Claim 5 (single site ¶[0021]) and Claim 6 (Example 1 is a transition metal, MAO (Cocatalyst) and silica support combination).
Flash tank conditions are 50 oC and 1 bar which anticipates Claim 7, Claim 8, Claim 9, Claim 12, Claim 13 and Claim 14.
Hydrogen being removed in the flash tanks as above anticipates Claim 3 and Claim 4. Note the flash tanks are separators and the only compounds entering the tanks to be flashed off are ethylene, butene and hydrogen as these are the raw material inputs of the loop reactor. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art is additionally reasonably suggested that Claim 3 and Claim 4 are anticipated as ethylene, butene and hydrogen (without regard to amounts of any of these) are all claimed in Claim 3 and Claim 4.
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.
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.
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 2, 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helland (U.S. 20050131187) in view of Dooley (U.S. 20200247919).
Helland is applied as above under §102.
Helland teaches use of separators to remove, for instance, hydrogen, from the polyolefin polymerization and exemplifies a flash tank (flash separator) but does not teach or suggest the residence time of the material in the flash tank / flash separator.
Dooley, working in the field of polyolefin production using separators similar to Applicant and Helland, teaches purge columns and heated fluidized bed flash chambers used for similar purposes, i.e. removing volatile components from a polymer solids streaming, to the flash tanks of Helland, with residence times in these apparatus performing separator functions of 1 to 30 minutes or 15 to 60 minutes. (¶[0073], ¶[0084])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to practice the invention of Helland, in particular that of Example 2, such that the residence time of the particles in the flash tank of Helland was 1 to 30 mins or, alternatively, 5 to 60 minutes because Dooley teaches these ranges of residence times in similar equipment used for the same separator purpose as Helland.
The above ranges overlap the residence times of Claim 2, Claim 10 and Claim 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M RODD whose telephone number is (571)270-1299. The examiner can normally be reached 7 am - 3:30 pm (Pacific).
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at (571) 272-1302. 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.
/Christopher M Rodd/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights