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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-12 are pending and presented for examination. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6 January 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks dated 6 January 2026 (hereinafter, “Remarks at __”) are acknowledged and entered.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7-11 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Brita is MAINTAINED and updated below to reflect the instant amendment.
The traversal is that Brita “does not teach ‘wherein the (B) azaheterocycle is added to the (A) pre-made solid procatalyst prior to the initiation of olefin polymerization, such that the (B) azaheterocycle resides on an exterior surface of the magnesium chloride solids to make the post-preparation blend”’ (Remarks at 6). To support the traversal, Applicants note that Brita produces the catalyst by a reaction between a soldi catalyst component, an alkylaluinum compound, and an optional electron-donor compound and that the ED of Brita is “introduced together in the alkylalminum compound, i.e., the cocatalyst, into the polymerization reactor, where the (i), (ii),and (iii) componnets react to form the active polymerization catalyst.” (Remarks at 6). Initially, it is unclear where Applicants conclude that these three components are all formed during the polymerization of the olefin, there is nothing in Brita which explicitly discloses that this occurs. Applicants state that this is similar to a blending step consistent with the standard Ziegler-Natta chemistry, but it is unclear how this actually differs from the instantly claimed invention. Applicants seem to state in the traversal that their instant claim is prior to any polymerization (“azaheterocycle (B) be added ot the pre-made solid procatalyst (A) prior ot initiation of polymerization, such that it resides on an exterior surface of the magnesium chloride solids”), but the claim is only drawn to the polyolefin polymerization. Applicants then go on to state that their Instant Specification sets forth what an external donor is, that it is on the exterior surface. So if the magnesium chloride, alkylaluminum, and the external donor of Brita are reacted together it would seem that the external donor (versus the internal) are present on the external surface. Applicants should have shown that the process of Brita clearly does not result in the external donor being on the exterior of the magnesium chloride.
The rejection of claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Zuideveld is MAINTAINED and updated below to reflect the instant amendment.
The basis for the traversal is that same as that against Brita. The difference between that Applicants allege that in Zuidweld that the electon donor and the compounds are “activating compounds” and that the external donors are “used as reactants in the polymerization of olefins” (Remarks at 7). And that due to both of these that the external donors are “added together with the cocatalyst to the polymerization reactor—consistent with conventional co-feed activation practice—rather than being applied to post-formation surface treatments of a pre-made procatalyst” (Id.). However, there is nothing in Zuidweld that explicitly teaches that these are added during the polymerization of the olefins. [0051] of Zuidweld only sets forth that addition of the ED occurs after the procatalyst is formed but does not state that it is added during polymerization of the olefin. Zuidweld actually states explicitly in [0403] that “The procatalyst, the co-catalyst, and the external donor can be mixed or otherwise combined prior to addition to the polymerization reactor.” (emphasis added).
The rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Brita was made en masse over that of claim 1 and is considered to be maintained for the same reasons.
The rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Brita in view of Proto was made en masse over that claim 1 and is maintained for the same reasons.
The rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Zuidweld in view of Proto was made en masse over that of claim 1 and is maintained for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brita.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4 and 5, Brita discloses a procatalyst system for making an olefin polymer (Brita at “Abstract”) comprising magnesium dichloride-ethanol (ethanol being a C2 alcohol, [0050] & [0026]-[0027]), silica (Id.), titanium tetrachloride (Id.), and an external electron donor (TMPiP, [0033]).
While the usage of an “internal electron donor” is disclosed, it is not necessary so the disclosure does not run afoul of “free of any other electron donor organic compound” ([0028]).
As the EDG is added post-preparation (as it is added to added to the solid catalyst components of magnesium/titanium ([0037]). Thusly this meets “post-preparation method” as required by claims 1, 8, 9 and 10. As the EDG is stated to be external and there is no explicitly disclosure that it is added during olefin polymerization it would thusly follow that it would reside on the exterior surface of the magnesium chloride solids to make the post-preparation blend.
Concerning claims 7-9, Brita discloses a method of synthesizing a procatalyst comprising drying a mixture of (Brita at [0022]-[0027] & [0034]) magnesium dichloride-ethanol adduct, titanium tetrachloride (or Ti(OR2)m-yXy where R2=C1-C10 alkyl), TMPiP in an organic solvent ([0024]) and then contacting with activator ([0032]-[0033]).
Turning to claim 10, Brita discloses a catalyst made by the method of claim 8 (Brita at [0032]).
Concerning claim 11, Brita discloses a method of synthesizing a polyolefin polymer comprising contacting at least one olefin monomer with the catalyst system of claim 10 under conditions effective to polymerize in a reactor to make the polyolefin ([0035]-[0036]).
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zuideveld.
Regarding claims 1-6, Zuideveld discloses a procatalyst system suitable for making an olefin polymerization catalyst (Zuideveld at “Abstract”) consisting essentially of a blend of titanium tetralkoxide (Zuideveld at [0027]) or chloride ([0090] which also discloses zirconium or hafnium chloride can also be used for claim 6) and Mg(OR1)xX12-x ([0068] discloses R4Mg3Cl2 and R can be an alkyl per “Claim 18” so it is free of the listed materials in claims 3, but can also have with it a cyclic C4 ether such as THF for claim 4, [[0127]) and the only electron donor group present is 2,2,6,6-tetramethyl piperidine, 2,6-dimethylpiperidine, pyridine, 2-methylpyridine, 4-methylpyridine ([0181]), which meet claim 2 as 2,2,6,6-tetramethyl piperidine has the formula of
PNG
media_image1.png
154
200
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
As the EDG is added post-preparation (as it is added to added to the solid catalyst components of magnesium/titanium ([0026]). Thusly this meets “post-preparation method” as required by claims 1, 8, 9 and 10. The external electron donor group is added “The procatalyst, the co-catalyst, and the external donor can be mixed or otherwise combined prior to addition to the polymerization reactor.” (Zuidweld at [0403]) which meets “wherein the (B) azaheterocycle is added to the (A) pre-made solid procatalyst prior to initiation of olefin polymerization, such that the (B) azahetrocycle resides on an exterior surface of the magnesium chloride solids to make the post-preparation blend”.
Concerning claim 7, the procatalyst system is made by drying a mixture consisting essentially of titanium source and magnesium chloride (Grignard compound) which is free of an azaheterocycle and is then reacted with a titanium compound ([0166]-[0168]) and ethanol ([0186]-[0188]) and then dried ([0199]) and then contacted with the internal electron donor which is the azaheterocycle discussed supra ([0200]).
As to claims 8-10, the procatalyst of claim 1 can be contacted with an activator after the azaheterocycle is contacted with the procatalyst ([0203]) and MgCl2 can be the magnesium source (
Turning to claim 11, the catalyst Is used in a method of synthesizing polyolefin via reacting an olefin monomer with the catalyst under effective polymerization conditions in a reactor thereby making the polyolefin ([0403]-[0404]). The MgCl2 can also have with it tetrahydrofuran ([0127] which is a C4 cyclic ether).
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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brita as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 12, Brita discloses numerous possible external electron donors, one selection from this finite list is (2-ethylpiperidinyl)t-butyldimethoxysilane which has an R2=CH3 which is a C1 alkyl (Brita at [0032]). As this is a selection from a finite number of selections this does not impart patentability as it has been held to be prima facie obvious (see KSR v Teleflex 398 550 US (2007)).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brita as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Proto.
As to claim 12, to the extent Brita does not disclose the same material of claim 12, Proto discloses the substitution of TMPiP for TEMPO (Proto at Table II”) for a precatalyst of MgCl2/TiCl4 (Proto at 2905 L col).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to substitute the TMPiP of Brita for the TMPO of Proto. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being a higher Mw/Mn (6.9 for TMPiP versus 7.9 for TEMPO).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuideveld as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Proto.
As to claim 12, Zuideveld does not expressly state usage of those species of claim 12.
Proto discloses the substitution of TMPiP for TEMPO (Proto at Table II”) for a precatalyst of MgCl2/TiCl4 (Proto at 2905 L col).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to substitute the TMPiP of Zuideveld for the TMPO of Proto. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being a higher Mw/Mn (6.9 for TMPiP versus 7.9 for TEMPO).
Conclusion
Claims 1-12 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD M RUMP whose telephone number is (571)270-5848. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 06:45 AM to 04:45 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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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.
RICHARD M. RUMP
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/RICHARD M RUMP/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759