DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior office action.
All outstanding objections and rejections made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
No new grounds of rejection are set forth below. Thus, the following action is properly made final.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3 and 5-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumawat et al. Journal of Physical Chemistry C 2019, 123, 24501-24510 (herein Kumawat) in view of Wondimagegn et al. J. Phys. Chem. C 2012, 116, 1027– 1033 (herein Wondimagegn), US 2010/0125124 (herein Blackmon) and/or WO 2019/155393 (herein Gupta).
As to claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10-11 and 13, Kumawat discloses a Ziegler-Natta catalyst system and method of utilizing the system comprising (see abstract and examples):
A pro-catalyst comprising (see examples under experimental section 2.1):
A magnesium compound (e.g. magnesium chloride, MgCl2)
A titanium compound (e.g. titanium chloride, TiCl4)
A multi-dentate internal donor (tetraethyl-3,3,3′,3′-tetramethyl-2,2′,3,3′-tetrahydro-1,1′-spirobiindane-5,5′,6,6′-tetracarbonate). Also see structure (a) in figure 1.
The molar ratio of co-catalyst to pro-catalyst is 250:1, thus, about 97 wt% cocatalyst to about 3 wt% pro-catalyst (deduced using the molecular weights of the components). See examples. This amount is just outside the claimed range. However, Kumawat also discloses that the catalyst system may comprise an external donor (selectivity control agent) such as an alkoxy silane, which enhances the regio and stereoselectivity. See page 24501 and first paragraph on 24508.
Kumawat points to Wondimagegn (reference 9, page 24501) to directions on external donors/alkoxysilanes.
Wondimagegn teaches similar Ziegler-Natta Catalyst systems. See abstract and examples. Wondimagegn discloses that the external donor is dicyclopentyl dimethoxysilane (DCPDMS, reading on preferred agent of claim 8, see page 1028 of Wondimagegn). The external donor increases molecular weight and decreases atactic polymers (see page 1032 of Wondimagegn) and teaches in the supporting information amounts up to about 10 mol%. Moreover, Blackmon teaches similar Ziegler-Natta Catalyst systems. See abstract and examples. Blackmon teaches that an external electron donor (selectivity control agent, SCA) is utilized for stereoregulation and is preferably dicyclopentyl dimethoxysilane (CPDS) in amounts of 0.5 to 300 ppm. See paragraph 35 of Blackmon. Gupta also discloses similar Ziegler-Natta catalyst systems. See abstract and examples. Gupta discloses that the selectivity control agent is dicyclopnetyldimethoxysilane and is utilized in an amount of co-catalyst to selectivity control agent of 2:1 to 50:1. See page 9. The selectivity control agent is added to control the desired isotacticity. See page 10. Further, note that Gupta discloses that the pro-catalyst (see examples) comprises about 9 wt% of the selectivity control agent.
In light of the discussion above, it is evident that dicyclopentyl dimethoxysilane is added to Ziegler-Natta catalyst systems in order to optimize the molecular weight, regio and stereoselectivity. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to have modified the process of Kumawat by adding an appropriate amount external donor (selectivity control agent, such as dicyclopentyl dimethoxysilane) as suggested by Wondimagegn, Blackmon and Gupta because one would want to control the molecular weight, regio and stereoselectivity. By way of adding the selectivity control agent (e.g. amounts of 3 wt% would also affect the amount of co-catalyst and pro-catalyst and one would thereby arrive at the claimed amounts via routine experimentation and optimization of the amount of selectivity control agent.
As to claims 9 and 12, it is not clear what the amount of multi-dentate internal donor in the examples. However, Kumawat discloses that the donor is added in an amount to control activity. See page 24501. Further, Gupta discloses that the pro-catalyst (see examples) comprises about 9 wt% of the selectivity control agent. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to have modified the amount of multi-dentate internal donor to e.g. 9 wt% suggested by Gupta because one would want to control activity.
As to claims 14-19, the reaction and conditions are identical with a medium of hexane under inert atmosphere to obtain a first slurry then introducing a olefin (ethylene) at a pressure of 5.0 to 5.5 kg/cm2 at 68 to 72 oC. Afterwards, a second slurry at the same temperature and pressure is polymerized to produce a polyolefin. Hydrogen was utilized as a terminating agent. See examples.
As to claim 20, propylene is also polymerized under the same conditions. See section 3.4.
Claims 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumawat et al. Journal of Physical Chemistry C 2019, 123, 24501-24510 (herein Kumawat) in view of Wondimagegn et al. J. Phys. Chem. C 2012, 116, 1027– 1033 (herein Wondimagegn), US 2010/0125124 (herein Blackmon) and/or WO 2019/155393 (herein Gupta) in further view of US 2016/0347881 (herein Patil).
The discussion with respect to Kumawat, Wondimagegn, Blackmon and Gupta set-forth above is incorporated herein by reference.
As to claim 4, Kumawat is silent on the claimed magnesium alkoxides.
Patil discloses similar systems. See abstract and examples. Patil discloses that the magnesium can be magnesium ethoxide or magnesium chloride. See paragraph 37.
Case law has established that it is prima facie obvious to substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). MPEP 2143, rationale (B). In the present case, it is evident that Kumawat differs from the presently claimed system by the substitution of magnesium chloride for magnesium ethoxide Additionally, it is evident that the substituted component is known in the art, as both are taught in Patil. Additionally, it is evident that a person of ordinary skill in the art could have of substituted in magnesium chloride for magnesium ethoxide and that the results of the substitution (a Ziegler-Natta catalyst system) would have been predictable. In light of this discussion, it is apparent that the presently claimed invention is arrived at by simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the present invention to have the substituted magnesium chloride for magnesium ethoxide and suggested by Patil, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues advantages of particular examples, however these features are not claimed. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant points to comparative examples wherein DIBP is utilized as the internal donor in table 2. However, this argument appears moot given that Kumawat teaches the claimed multi-dentate internal donor.
Applicant points to examples without a selectivity control agent in table 3.
In response, the claims require a selectivity control agent, which Kumawat teaches. Therefore, these examples appear moot.
Applicant argues that Kumawat teaches away from the claimed invention on page 10. However, it is unclear how Kumawat teaches away. The citations on page 10 suggest that the claimed multidentate carbonate is advantageous over other donors stating in the conclusion that it is more effective and that is less hazardous in the abstract.
Applicant argues on page 11 and elsewhere over low to high molecular weight polymers vs medium to high molecular weight polymers, however none of these features are claimed and thus are moot.
Applicant argues that Gupta differs in the objective.
In response, the reasons for combining or arriving at the claimed invention may be different. The objective does not address the rejecitons.
Applicant argues that Gupta comprises additional components (activity limiting agent) and does not teach all the claimed features.
In response, claims utilize open phraseology viz comprising. The limitation “comprising” is interpreted in accordance with MPEP 2111.03 as “inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps.” Therefore, applicant’s argument is moot.
Applicant argues that Patil does not teach all the claimed features. In response, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In the instant case, Patil is a secondary reference that teaches that the magnesium can be magnesium ethoxide or magnesium chloride
Applicant argues the technological advancements of the claimed donor.
In response, Kumawat teaches the claimed multi-dentate internal donor. Moreover, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
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 MARK S KAUCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-7340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-6 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, 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.
/MARK S KAUCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights