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 .
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed 6/22/2026. Claims 1-2 are amended; and claims 8-9 and 11-13 are withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to non-elected invention. Accordingly, claims 1-13 are currently pending in the application.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hlavinka et al (US 2015/0259455 A1) in view of Martin et al (WO 2018/147968 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 2, and 7, Hlavinka et al discloses ethylene copolymer having a bimodal molecular weight distribution (paragraph 0006) which reads on bimodal copolymer in present claim 1. It is noted that presence of LMW and HMW copolymer is implicit in the bimodal molecular weight distribution. See example 6, wherein ethylene-1-hexene copolymer (see Table I; and reads on ethylene-co-1-alkene copolymer in present claims 1 and 7), has a density of 0.9521 g/cm3 (see Table IV; reads on density in present claims 1 and 2), a Mw/Mn of 10.81 (i.e., reads on first molecular weight distribution in present claim 1), a Mn of 47,410 g/mol (i.e., reads on the number average molecular weight in present claim 1), a Mw of 512,400 g/mol (see Table II; and reads on weight average molecular weight in present claims 1 and 2), a HLMI of 3.36 g/10 min (see Table I; and reads on HLMI in present claims 1 and 2). The ratio of Mz/Mw is in a range from about 3.5 to about 8.5 (paragraph 0148) which reads on the ratio of Mz/Mw in present claim 1. See Figure 1, wherein the high molecular weight polymer (log M value of between about 5.5 and 70) is present in amounts of < 38% by weight (i.e., reads on weight fraction of HMW copolymer component of a combined weight of HMW and LMW copolymer in present claim 1).
Hlavinka et al are silent with respect to resin swell t1000, achieving resin swell t1000 while maintaining the molecular weight distributions Mw/Mn feature of (b) and Mz/Mn. feature of (f) and component weight fraction amount of feature (i).
However, regarding resin swell t1000, Martin et al teach bimodal polyethylene resins (title). The swell of a polyethylene resin may be tailored during the polymerization process by properly targeting or adjusting the hydrogen to ethylene ratio. The ethylene-based polymer has a capillary swell t1000 (sec) of at least 6 (i.e., overlaps with resin swell t1000 in present claim 1). Court held that when the range of instant claims and that disclosed in prior art overlap, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05. Additionally, adjusting the in-reactor ratio of catalyst compounds of the catalyst system as well as the hydrogen to ethylene ratio may be used to tailor polyethylene resin swell. In addition to the hydrogen to ethylene ratio, the comonomer to ethylene ratio may also have an impact on swell characteristics of the resulting polymer. The comonomer to ethylene ratio may be selected in conjunction with the hydrogen to ethylene ratio to tailor the swell characteristics of the resulting polyethylene (page 8, line 13 to page 9, line 2). When the desired swell is high, the hydrogen to ethylene ratio may be controlled to be less than 0.00140, on a molar basis; when the desired swell is low, the hydrogen to ethylene ratio may be controlled to be greater than 0.00145 on a molar basis, such as in the range of 0.00145 to 0.00155, on a molar basis (page 25, lines 22-25). Therefore, in light of the teachings in Martin et al, it would have been obvious to one skilled in art prior to the filing of present application to use a known method of adjusting the ratio of hydrogen to ethylene in conjunction with the comonomer to ethylene ratio, to obtain a bimodal poly(ethylene-co-1-alkene) copolymer, of Hlavinka et al, having a resin swell t1000 in overlapping range of from 8.1 to 10, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding achieving resin swell t1000 while maintaining the molecular weight distributions Mw/Mn feature of (b) and Mz/Mn. feature of (f) and component weight fraction amount of feature (i), Hlavinka et al teach in examples 2-8, using a dual catalyst system containing MET 1 and MET 2 to prepare ethylene-based polymers (paragraph 0196). Given that ethylene-based polymers of Hlavinka et al are prepared using a dual catalyst system as in present invention, and ratio of hydrogen and ethylene can be adjusted in conjunction with comonomer to ethylene ratio, based on the teaching sin Martin et al, one skilled in art would have a reasonable basis to expect the molecular weight distributions Mw/Mn feature of (b) and Mz/Mn feature of (f) and component weight fraction amount of feature (i), absent evidence to the contrary. Since PTO cannot conduct experiments, the burden of proof is shifted to the applicants to establish an unobviousness difference, see In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 3, see example 6, of Hlavinka et al, wherein the copolymer has an ESCR of > 1000 hr (see Table IV) which reads on the ESCR of greater than 150 hours in present claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Hlavinka et al teach that ethylene copolymer has z-weight average molecular weight of from about 1,750,000 to about 7,500,000 (paragraph 0152) which overlaps with the z-weight average molecular weight in present claim 4.
Regarding claim 10, Hlavinka et al teach that additives and modifiers are often added to these polymers to provide beneficial polymer processing or end-use product attributes (paragraph 0157)
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hlavinka et al (US 2015/0259455 A1) in view of Martin et al (WO 2018/147968 A1) and Rohatgi et al (US 2015/0259444 A1).
The discussion with respect to Hlavinka et al and Martin et al in paragraph 8 above is incorporated here by reference.
Hlavinka et al and Martin et al are silent with respect to the molecular weight of low molecular weight polymer and high molecular weight polymer.
However, Rohatgi et al in the same field of endeavor teach ethylene-based polymers having a higher molecular weight component and a lower molecular weight component and characterized by a density greater than 0.945 g/cm3. These polymers have the processability of chromium-based resins but with improved stiffness and stress crack resistance and can be used in blow-molding applications (abstract). See example 6 (Table V), wherein the lower molecular weight component has a Mw of 63,800 g/mol (i.e., reads on the Mw of LMW copolymer in present claim 6) and Mz of 123,000 g/mol (i.e., reads on the Mz of LMW copolymer in present claim 6). The high molecular weight component has a Mn of 321,000 g/mol (i.e., reads on Mn of HMW copolymer in present claim 5). See example 2, wherein the high molecular weight component has Mw of 1,110,000 g/mol (i.e., reads on the Mw of HMW copolymer in present claim 5). The lower molecular weight can have a Mn in a range from about 8,000 to about 35,000 (paragraph 0054) which overlaps with the Mn of LMW in present claim 6. Additionally, see figure 1, of Rohatgi et al, wherein molecular weight distribution of the ethylene copolymer is substantially similar to the molecular weight distribution in Hlavinka et al (see Figure 2). Therefore, in light of the teachings in Rohtagi et al and given that molecular weight distribution of ethylene copolymer in Rohtagi et al is similar to that in Hlavinka et al, one skilled in art would have a reasonable basis to expect the ethylene copolymer, of Hlavinka et al in view of Martin et al, to have the presently claimed properties, absent evidence to the contrary. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one skilled in art prior to the filing of present application to prepare the bimodal ethylene copolymer, of Hlavinka et al in view of Martin et al, having a low molecular weight component and high molecular weight component based on the teachings in Rohtagi et al, for above mentioned advantages.
Response to Arguments
The objection, and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth in paragraphs 4 and 9-10, of Office action mailed 4/10/2026, are withdrawn in view of amendments and/or applicant arguments and/or new grounds of rejection set forth in this Office action, necessitated by amendment.
While the grounds of rejection are changed, it was still deemed appropriate to address some of the arguments which would be pertinent to new grounds of rejection in this office action (See paragraph 11 below).
Applicant's arguments filed 6/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, general thrust of applicant argument is that Office Action relies upon Martin for the proposition that resin swell may be influenced by hydrogen-to-ethylene ratio and comonomer-to-ethylene ratio. Martin expressly provides that the comonomer-to- ethylene ratio may be determined to produce a polyethylene resin having "a desired flow index, a desired density, a desired molecular weight distribution, or any combination thereof". Martin teaches that the hydrogen-to-ethylene ratio and the comonomer-to-ethylene ratio are selected to obtain multiple desired polymer properties, including a desired molecular weight distribution. Martin therefore provides no teaching or suggestion that resin swell may be independently tailored while preserving the claimed molecular weight distributions and component weight fraction amount. Accordingly, Martin does not support the Office Action's assertion that adjustment of the hydrogen-to-ethylene ratio together with the comonomer-to- ethylene ratio would achieve the claimed resin swell t1000 while maintaining the claimed molecular weight distributions and component weight fraction amount.
In response, Hlavinka et al teaches bimodal poly(ethylene-co-1-alkene) copolymer comprising LMW and HMW copolymer components having several properties (such as density, first molecular weight distribution, second molecular weight distribution, weight average molecular weight, number average molecular weight, copolymer component). Graham v. Deere analysis was done and Martin et al provided a mechanism for achieving the resin swell which can be tailored together with the flow index, a desired density, and a desired molecular weight distribution. There is nothing in the record to show that altering the ratio of ethylene to comonomer and ethylene to hydrogen ratio to obtain the claimed resin swell would change the first, second molecular weight distribution, and component weight fraction to fall outside the presently claimed range. Additionally, note that the process in Hlavinka et al uses dual catalyst system as in the present application.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARUNA P REDDY whose telephone number is (571)272-6566. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM M-F.
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 (Lanee) 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.
/KARUNA P REDDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights