DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
As previously set forth: 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
As previously set forth: Applicant’s election without traverse of A) ethylene with 1-hexane, b) gas phase reactor, c) diethoxymagnesium, d) TiCl4, e) 2.2-di(2-tetrahydrofuryl)propane, f)second transition metal is TiCl4, second donor is 2,2-di(2-tetrahydrofuryl)propane, g) suspension in the reply filed on 10/17/25 is acknowledged.
While US ‘690 was used for the special technical feature, it is not used since US ‘177 is found to better meet certain aspects of the claims. Further, the multiple X references in the ISR were considered and deemed to be cumulative to the rejection below.
Priority
As previously set forth: The foreign priority is in English, thus the claims have a priority date of the filing of said priority: 4/9/2020
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues the Examples of the present application support that the claimed process steps impart different product properties compared to the product when using a catalyst in which claimed steps a) and c) are not included. Applicant argues improved hexene (comonomer) incorporation, higher MW polymers and 3x higher molar ethylene concentration in the gas phase reactor were found.
The Examiner disagrees. Applicant has not shown the Prior Art’s process gives a different result. While Applicant’s specification shows a different process, this process does not overlap with Jayaratne. Arguments therein are thusly not persuasive. Regarding arguments drawn to higher MW, hexene incorporation and 3x molar concentration in the gas phase reactor, the claims do not have a MW requirement and only optionally require comonomers. The concentration in the gas phase reactor being moot since such the comparison data is drawn to a process different than Jayaratne.
Applicant argues the specification on page 2 discloses the claimed catalyst to impart improved/enhanced properties. Applicant argues Table 2 supports the unexpected results of the claimed invention and the repetitive steps a) and c) should be give patentable weight. Applicant argues Jayaratne teaches contacting a solution with a transition metal in a single sequence and there is no reason to modify Jayaratne to arrive at the claimed catalyst.
The Examiner disagrees. The examples of Table 2 compare 2 different catalysts used in a 1st and 2nd loop reactor followed by a gas phase reactor. Though the catalysts are made differently, and, result in different products, the Table does not compare a catalyst made by Jayaratne. The data is not persuasive to show that Jayaratne does not produce the same, or, substantially the same, product. That Jayaratne uses a different method of making is moot since Applicant has not shown this method to give a different result. Applicant’s arguments drawn to unexpected results are misplaced since the results are not comparing the closest prior art. Applicant’s arguments are thusly not persuasive and the rejection stands as previously set forth.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 1-14, 16-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jayaratne (US 2015/0322177).
This rejection is as previously set forth, reiterated below in its entirety in italics.
Jayaratne discloses processes for making Zieglar-Natta catalysts for ethylene polymerization (title). Said polymerization includes using TiCl4 [meeting the claimed first/second transition metal] and a magnesium alkoxide solution in the presence of a donor 2,2-di(2-tetrahydrofuryl)propane compound [meeting the electron donor compound and that elected of claim 10] to form the catalyst, producing a solid particulate catalyst and then washing and using said catalyst to polymerize ethylene (see Example 2 [0298-0302]). The table of [0308] calculates to a Mg/Ti ratio of 2.3 and 2.7 (12.1/5.16 = 2.3, ect), a Ti/donor ratio of 0.62 (5.16/8.3 = 0.62) of the catalyst [meeting claim 11, wherein the Cl/Ti would be embraced because of the use of TiCl4], [0200] discloses an end diameter range of the solid catalyst of from 5-200 microns [meeting claim 4], and [0203] discloses an end PDI of the solid catalyst of from 0.5-4 [meeting claim 20].
Since the same components are used (magnesium alkoxide, TiCl4, same donor compound), and the end result is a solid Ziegler-Natta catalyst having PDI, particle diameter and ratios within that claimed, it is the Examiner’s position that this end catalyst product formed is indistinguishable from that claimed. Though solid magnesium alkoxide is not used herein, the magnesium oxide compound will react with the TiCl4 to create MgCl both here and in Applicant’s invention, giving the same end result. The process of making the catalyst being a product by process limitation and is not pertinent unless Applicant shows a distinct product is produced. Alternatively, it’s prima facie obvious because the claimed product may be slightly different than the product of the prior art.
The above catalyst is used in gas phase reactors [0227] to produce polyethylene (abstract). A cocatalyst is used [0211] along with the above zieglar natta catalyst. Elements above meet all the requirements of claim 1. Elements above meet claims 2-11 wherein any steps drawn to the making of the catalyst are again treated as product by process. The above components are introduced into a reactor, and, polyethylene is produced thus the conditions must be maintained sufficient to meet P-d of claim 12. Elements above thusly meet claim 12. A multistage reaction of at least one slurry and one gas reactor is disclosed in [0227], as required by claims 13-14. Elements discussed above about the catalyst meet claims 16-19 and meet the PDI of claim 20. Selecting 2 slurry reactors and 1 gas is prima facie obvious given the ‘at least one slurry’ and ‘at least one gas’ disclosure of [0277], meeting claim 21.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA BLAND whose telephone number is (571)272-2451. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 am -3:00 pm EST.
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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/ALICIA BLAND/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759