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 .
Applicant’s preliminary amendment dated 15 February 2024 is acknowledged. Claims 1-13 as amended are pending.
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.
Claim 3 is 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 3 recites the broad recitation “C4, C5, C6 . . . and C10 alkanes or mixtures thereof,” and the claim also recites “preferably . . . C4, C5, C6 . . . and C10 n-alkanes or mixtures thereof,” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0371201 (“Al-Haj Ali”).
As to claim 1, Al-Haj Ali teaches a process of separating polyolefins from a polymerization mixture. Al-Haj Ali teaches solution polymerization process (paras. 0047-0048). Al-Haj Ali teaches separating a product stream into a liquid phase and vapor phase, where the liquid phase contains the polymer, thus polyolefin rich phase, while the vapor contains the majority of solvent, unreacted monomers (mixture of volatiles) (para. 0067).
Al-Haj Ali teaches that the vapor stream may be passed directly to the polymerization reactor(s), thus feeding into an initial feed stream of the solution polymerization process without further purification (para. 0098). As such, Al-Haj Ali teaches step A with subsequent introduction of polyolefin lean vapor stream b into an initial feed stream.
While not exemplified, Al-Haj Ali teaches that the concentrated solution stream (liquid phase) may be subject to at least one further concentration step, which may be performed in similar manner as the first (para. 0100). As such, Al-Haj Ali contemplates additional separation steps B and C (at least one including two) carried out similarly, such that a second polyolefin lean vapor stream b’ would be produced and directed to the initial feed stream, with a second polyolefin liquid (condensed stream), to a step C separating that further concentrated stream c’ to a third polyolefin rich stream and third polyolefin lean stream. As such, given that Al-Haj Ali teaches the initial separation step A, and subsequent similar steps, the steps A-C are an obvious modification suggested by Al-Haj Ali.
As to claim 2, Al-Haj Ali teaches the mixture includes solvent, monomers and comonomers (para. 0067).
As to claim 3, while not exemplified with the three recited separation steps, Al-Haj Ali exemplifies n-hexane as solvent (para. 0103), and thus n-alkane is an obvious choice suggested by Al-Haj Ali.
As to claim 4, while not exemplified with three separation steps, Al-Haj Ali exemplifies a first flash separation step that is calculated as removing approximately 86 % of volatiles from a feed stream (para. 0103, table 1).
As to claim 5, while not exemplified, Al-Haj Ali teaches flash separation steps removing 35-80 wt %. For a second flash separation step, this suggests a removal of volatiles from 7 to 52 weight percent (accounting for the removal of volatiles in the first separation step), which encompasses the recited range, and as such, the removal of the recited amount in a second flash separation step of the condensed polyolefin rich stream is an obvious modification suggested by Al-Haj Ali.
As to claim 6, while not exemplified, Al-Haj Ali teaches flash separation steps removing 35-80 wt %. For a third flash separation step, this suggests a removal of volatiles from 1 to 18 weight percent (accounting for the removal of volatiles in the first and second separation steps), which encompasses the recited range, and as such, the removal of the recited amount in a second flash separation step of the condensed polyolefin rich stream is an obvious modification suggested by Al-Haj Ali.
As to claim 7, Al-Haj Ali teaches the separation is preferably flash separation (para. 0072).
As to claim 8, Al-Haj Ali teaches a temperature range of 120 to 240 degrees C, which includes temperatures in the recited range, and pressure of 2 to 12 bar, which includes the recited range (para. 0068). Further, Al-Haj Ali teaches flash separation at 220 degrees C and 9 bar (para. 0103). As such, the recited ranges are an obvious modification suggested by Al-Haj Ali.
As to claim 9, while the second separation step is not exemplified, Al-Haj Ali teaches that the concentrated solution stream (liquid stream) may be subject to at least one further concentration step, which may be performed in similar manner as the first (para. 0100). As such, a second flash separation step is an obvious modification suggested by Al-Haj Ali.
As to claim 10, while the second separation step is not exemplified, Al-Haj Ali teaches that the concentrated solution stream (liquid phase) may be subject to at least one further concentration step, which may be performed in similar manner as the first (para. 0100). As such, a second flash separation step is an obvious modification suggested by Al-Haj Ali. l-Haj Ali teaches a temperature range of 120 to 240 degrees C, which includes temperatures in the recited range, and pressure of 2 to 12 bar, which includes the recited range (para. 0068). Further, Al-Haj Ali teaches flash separation at 220 degrees C and 9 bar (para. 0103). As such, the recited ranges are an obvious modification suggested by Al-Haj Ali.
As to claim 11, while the third separation step is not exemplified, Al-Haj Ali teaches that the concentrated solution stream (liquid stream) may be subject to at least one further concentration step, which may be performed in similar manner as the first (para. 0100). As such, a third flash separation step is an obvious modification suggested by Al-Haj Ali. In addition, Al-Haj Ali teaches that components such as water (a stripping agent as acknowledged by applicant’s specification) (para. 0071) prior to a separation step, and as such, the addition of water is an obvious modification disclosed by Al-Haj Ali.
As to claim 12, while the third separation step is not exemplified, Al-Haj Ali teaches that the concentrated solution stream (liquid phase) may be subject to at least one further concentration step, which may be performed in similar manner as the first (para. 0100). As such, a second flash separation step is an obvious modification suggested by Al-Haj Ali. l-Haj Ali teaches a temperature range of 120 to 240 degrees C, which includes temperatures in the recited range, and pressure of 2 to 12 bar, which includes the recited range (para. 0068). Further, Al-Haj Ali teaches flash separation at 220 degrees C and 9 bar (para. 0103). As such, the recited ranges are an obvious modification suggested by Al-Haj Ali.
As to claim 13, Al-Haj Ali teaches that the solution polymerization may be conducted with metallocene catalyst (para. 0044), and thus is an obvious modification suggested by Al-Haj Ali.
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