DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
This action is responsive to national-stage application filed 02/08/2024. Following entry of the concurrently filed preliminary amendment, original claims 1-2 and 6, and amended claims 3-5, 7-15, 17, 19, 22-23 and 25, 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 02/08/2024, 12/18/2025 and 07/28/2026 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.
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 22 and 25 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 claim 22, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the subject matter following the phrase (“a mineral oil”) is intended to be part of the claimed invention, or merely exemplary (hence, non-limiting) of the antecedently recited “oil”. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of substantive examination, the claim is being broadly construed as inclusive of any arbitrary “oil” as the catalyst slurry medium. However, clarification and appropriate correction are required.
Regarding Claim 25, the limitation to “the controller” in line 1 lacks proper and sufficient antecedent basis in the claim or in any claim upon which claim 25 depends (currently, claims 22/1). Claim dependency appears incorrect (cf., claim 23, line 2). For purposes of substantive examination, an assumption has been made that claim 25 was intended to depend directly upon claim 23 (not claim 22); however, clarification and appropriate correction are required.
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 1-8, 10-13, 15, 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Egmond et al (US 2016/0229933 A1) (‘Van Egmond’) in view of Cai et al (US 2011/0172377 A1) (‘Cai’).
Regarding Claims 1 and 4-8: Van Egmond teaches a process for increasing a settled bulk density of a granular polyolefin polymer (para [0005], present disclosure is directed to processes for increasing the settled bulk density (SBD) of the fluidized bed in a gas-phase polymerization reactor; para [0038], the process includes forming particles of olefin-based polymer having a settled bulk density ("SBD") greater than 23.5 lb/ft3, or 30.0 Ib/ft3; para [0039], process advantageously improves (i.e., increases) SBD, polymer particles with increased (greater) SBD are desired because an increase in SBD enables increased throughput and increased catalyst productivity in the polymerization reactor; para [0023], the gas-phase polymerization, yielding particles of olefin-based polymer in granular form; para [0022], process embodies gas-phase polymerization which includes a gas-phase polymerization reactor having a reaction zone, the reaction zone includes a fluidized bed of growing polymer particles), the process comprising:
feeding a catalyst stream into a gas phase polymerization reactor (para [0023], the gas-polymerization includes a catalyst and other reactants which are fed continuously to the reaction zone; para [0022], a gas-phase polymerization reactor having a reaction zone, the reaction zone includes a minor amount of catalyst particles fluidized by the continuous flow of polymerizable components; para [0020], catalyst is fed into a lower section of the reactor), the catalyst stream comprising catalyst particles contained in a carrier fluid (para [0022], the reaction zone includes a minor amount of catalyst particles fluidized by the continuous flow of polymerizable components; para [0024], the fluidizing medium is composed of propylene, a hydrocarbon, and at least one other gas, such as hydrogen or nitrogen; para [0025], the catalyst used in the fluidized bed can be fed into the reactor in the form of solid particles, the solid catalyst may be stored under a blanket of inert gas and introduced into the reaction zone; wherein propylene [for claim 7] and inert gases such as N2 gas [for claim 8] are applicable carrier fluids; cf., instant specification para [0012], carrier fluid can be an inert gas such as nitrogen gas, the carrier fluid can be liquid propylene);
feeding a support gas into the gas phase polymerization reactor together with the catalyst stream entering the reactor (para [0022], a gas-phase polymerization reactor having a reaction zone, the reaction zone includes a minor amount of catalyst particles fluidized by the continuous flow of polymerizable components; para [0018], fluidizing medium includes propylene monomer gas and at least one other gas such as a carrier gas such as hydrogen or nitrogen; para [0017], the fluidizing medium passes through the gas-phase polymerization reactor; hence, propylene gas and nitrogen gas are applicable supporting gases [for claims 4-6]: cf., instant specification para [0011], support gas can comprise a monomer gas, an inert gas, or mixtures thereof, support gas comprises an inert gas, support gas may comprise a propylene gas), the support gas being fed into the gas phase reactor at a velocity (para [0017], the fluidizing medium passes through the gas-phase polymerization reactor at a velocity sufficient to maintain the bed of solid particles in a suspended condition);
forming polyolefin particles in the gas phase polymerization reactor through contact with the catalyst particles and a monomer (para [0020], catalyst is fed into a lower section of the reactor, reaction occurs upon contact between the catalyst and the fluidizing medium yielding growing polymer particles; para [0022], the reaction zone includes a minor amount of catalyst particles fluidized by the continuous flow of polymerizable components; para [0021], one or more olefin monomers introduced in the gas-phase reactor to react with the catalyst and to form a fluidized bed of polymer particles, examples of suitable olefin monomers include propylene; para [0023], the gas-phase polymerization includes catalyst, olefin monomer (such as propylene) and other reactants which are fed continuously to the reaction zone, yielding particles of olefin-based polymer in granular form); and
determining a settled bulk density of the granular polyolefin particles (para [0005], the present disclosure is directed to processes for increasing the settled bulk density (SBD) of the fluidized bed in a gas-phase polymerization reactor; para [0038], the process includes forming particles of olefin-based polymer having a settled bulk density ("SBD") greater than 23.5 lb/ft3, or 30.0 Ib/ft3; para [0039], the process advantageously improves (i.e., increases) SBD, polymer particles with increased (greater) SBD are desired because an increase in SBD enables increased throughput and increased catalyst productivity in the polymerization reactor. Hence, the determined settled bulk density is greater than 23.5 lb/ft3 or 30.0 lb/ft3).
Van Egmond differs from the present invention in failing to directly disclose wherein the process selectively increases or decreases the velocity of the support gas in order to maintain the settled bulk density above a preset limit.
However, in the same technical field, Cai similarly teaches a process for increasing the settled bulk density of a granular polyolefin polymer (Abs., process for polymerizing one or more olefins in a gas-phase polymerization reactor is provided, the process includes increasing the bulk density of the fluidized bed; para [0104], process includes producing polymer particles having an SBD from about 240 kg/m3 (15 lb/ft3) to about 560 kg/m3 (35 lb/ft3); para [0022], gas phase reactor includes a fluidized bed of polymer particles fluidized by a fluidizing medium; para [0037], "fluidized bed" is a plurality of polymer particles suspended in a fluidized state by a stream of a fluidizing medium), the process comprising:
feeding a catalyst stream and support gas into a gas polymerization reactor (Abs., the gas-phase reactor has a fluidized bed and a fluidizing medium, the fluidizing medium has an operating velocity; para [0022], gas phase reactor includes a fluidized bed of polymer particles fluidized by a fluidizing medium; para [0037], "gas phase polymerization" is the passage of a fluidizing medium containing one or more monomers, in the presence of a catalyst, "fluidized bed" is a plurality of polymer particles suspended in a fluidized state by a stream of a fluidizing medium; para [0011], the fluidizing medium includes propylene gas; para [0040], catalyst is fed into a lower section of the reactor; para [0085], the fluidizing medium flows or passes through the bed at a velocity), feeding the support gas being fed into the gas phase reactor at a velocity (Abs., the gas-phase reactor has a fluidized bed and a fluidizing medium, the fluidizing medium has an operating velocity; para [0085], the fluidizing medium flows or passes through the bed at a velocity of from about 0.24 m/second (0.8 ft/second) to about 1.52 m/second (5.0 ft/second)); and
selectively decreasing the velocity of the support gas in order to maintain the settled bulk density above a preset limit (Abs., the gas-phase reactor has a fluidized bed and a fluidizing medium, the fluidizing medium has an operating velocity; para [0015], operating gas velocity is adjusted from a velocity greater than the critical gas velocity and is decreased to less than or equal to the critical gas velocity, this increases the bulk density of the fluidized bed; para [0037], "fluidized bed" is a plurality of polymer particles suspended in a fluidized state by a stream of a fluidizing medium; para [0084], the polymer particles have a settled bulk density (SBD) from about 240 kg/m3 (15 lb/ft3) to about 560 kg/m3 (35 lb/ft3)).
Inasmuch as Van Egmond similarly aims to improve (i.e., increase) the SBD of olefin-based polymer particles as noted above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the process of Van Egmond by adjusting the velocity of the support gas being fed into the gas phase polymerization reactor to maintain the settled bulk density above a preset limit as per Cai, prompted by the expectation of thereby optimizing the overall process by increasing throughput and catalyst productivity in the polymerization reactor, reducing the amount of unreacted monomer, improving product discharge and increasing residence time (see Van Egmond, para [0039] - process advantageously improves (i.e., increases) SBD, polymer particles with increased (greater) SBD are desired because an increase in SBD enables increased throughput and increased catalyst productivity in the polymerization reactor, higher SBD reduces the amount of unreacted monomer carried with the polymer product, an increase in SBD also improves product discharge from the reactor and increases residence time).
Regarding Claim 2, Van Egmond in view of Cai renders obvious the process of claim 1 as discussed above. Van Egmond further teaches wherein the catalyst stream enters the gas phase polymerization reactor through a catalyst inlet having a cross-sectional area (Abs., forming a wet zone in a gas phase polymerization reactor, injection of a high activity catalyst composition in the wet zone; para [0006], process includes injecting a catalyst composition into the wet zone; para [0032], the catalyst composition is introduced into the wet zone at injection point 42; Fig 1, catalyst stream injected into reactor through inlet/injection point 42; para [0141], the catalyst is injected into the reactor through an injection tube that penetrates through the side of the reactor wall) and wherein the support gas flows into the gas phase polymerization reactor through a gas supply inlet (para [0029], the fluidizing medium is returned through recycle line 22 to reactor 10 at point 26 below the fluidized bed 102, gas distributor plate 28 is provided above point 26 to aid in fluidizing the fluidized bed; para [0017], the fluidizing medium passes through the gas-phase polymerization reactor at a velocity sufficient to maintain the bed of solid particles in a suspended condition; Fig 1, support gas/fluidized medium fed into reactor through inlet/injection point 26). Van Egmond does not specifically teach wherein the gas supply inlet has a cross-sectional area (CSA) within 0.25 to 4.0 times that of the catalyst inlet. Nevertheless, the recited range encompasses a relative CSA of 1.0, i.e., the gas supply inlet has the same CSA as the catalyst inlet. It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art as a routine matter of process design to employ duplicate inlet lines of identical cross-sectional area for introducing the catalyst and support gas in the modified process of Van Egmond for the practical benefit of simplifying the sizing of supply lines, and since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding Claim 3, Van Egmond in view of Cai renders obvious the process of claim 1 as discussed above. Van Egmond further teaches wherein the support gas flows into the gas phase polymerization reactor in a manner that is concentric with the catalyst stream (para [0022], a gas-phase polymerization reactor having a reaction zone, the reaction zone includes a minor amount of catalyst particles fluidized by the continuous flow of polymerizable components; para [0017], the fluidizing medium passes through the gas-phase polymerization reactor at a velocity sufficient to maintain the bed of solid particles in a suspended condition; para [0141], the catalyst is injected into the reactor through an injection tube; para [0032], the catalyst composition is introduced into the wet zone at injection point 42; para [0025], the catalyst used in the fluidized bed can be fed into the reactor in the form of solid particles, the solid catalyst may be stored under a blanket of inert gas and introduced into the reaction zone; Fig 1, catalyst stream injected with support gas (inert gas) into reactor through inlet/injection point 42. Hence, the catalyst stream may be injected into the reaction zone of the gas-phase polymerization reactor through injection point/tube 42 concentrically with the support gas as it is under a blanket of the support gas (inert gas); cf., instant specification para [0010], support gas inlet can be concentric with the catalyst inlet and/or catalyst stream, for example the catalyst stream can be dispensed into the gas phase reactor through a nozzle that is surrounded by the support gas inlet).
Regarding Claims 10 and 15: Van Egmond in view of Cai renders obvious the process of claim 1 as discussed above. Van Egmond further teaches wherein the catalyst particles comprise a Ziegler-Natta catalyst and wherein the Ziegler-Natta catalyst comprises a solid catalyst component, which comprises a magnesium moiety, a titanium moiety and internal electron donor, at lest one co-catalyst, at least one selectivity control agent, and optionally an activity limiting agent (see paras [0045]-[0046] and [0133]-[0139] (Examples)).
Regarding Claims 11-13: Van Egmond in view of Cai renders obvious the process of claim 1 as discussed above. Van Egmond further teaches wherein the settled bulk density is greater than about 250 kg/m3 (claim 11) or greater than about 350 kg/m3 (claim 12) or greater than about 400 kg/m3 (claim 13) (para [0038], the process includes forming particles of olefin-based polymer having a settled bulk density ("SBD") greater than 23.5 lb/ft3 (= 376.4 kg/m3) or 30.0 Ib/ft3 (480 kg/m3).
Regarding Claims 23 and 25: Van Egmond in view of Cai renders obvious the process of claim 1 as discussed above. As noted, Van Egmond teaches determining a settled bulk density of the granular polyolefin particles (paras [0038]-[0039]) and Cai teaches to selectively decrease the velocity of the support gas in order to maintain the settled bulk density above a preset limit (para [0015]). Neither reference discloses wherein the determined settled bulk density is communicated to a controller and wherein the controller, based upon the determined settled bulk density, is configured to increase or decrease the velocity of the support gas in order to increase the settled bulk density. Nevertheless, the utility of commercially available controllers, including those operating in open-feed or closed-feed loop manner, in monitoring measured variables in polymerization processes and controlling input variables based upon the monitored information, is common knowledge in the chemical arts such that Official notice may be taken of its conventionality. Thus, when considering the level of skill of the ordinary practitioner and the fact that mere automation of a manual activity which accomplishes the same result (here, adjusting operating gas velocity from a velocity greater than the critical gas velocity to less than or equal to the critical gas velocity, to increase the bulk density, per Cai (para [0015])) has been held to be prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.04(III)), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the process of Van Egmond by incorporating a controller operating in an open feed or closed feed loop [for claim 25], to which the determined settled bulk density (SBD) is communicated and which, based upon the determined SBD, is configured to increase or decrease the velocity of the support gas (i.e., fluidizing medium, per Cai) in order to increase the settled bulk density. The motivation to do so being based on a reasonable expectation of facilitating overall efficiency of the prior art process.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Prior art to Cai et al (US 7714082 B2 and US 2013/0005923 A1) is cited to show analogous art, i.e., art directed to increasing granular particle density or bed bulk density in gas-phase polymerization processes (note Table 2 of ‘082 and para [0033} of ‘923). Neither citation teaches the instant process.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 14, 17 and 19 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.
Claim 22 would be allowable if amended or rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth in this Office action and to include all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim.
The closest prior art to Van Egmond et al and Cai et al, discussed above, does not describe the inventions of instant claims 9, 14, 17, 19 and 22, or provide proper rationale to modify either of their respective inventions into the invention of any of said claims.
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/09-16-26
.
Prosecution Insights