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All outstanding objections and rejections made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
The new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant’s amendment filed on 12/5/25. In particular, claim 1 has been amended substantially to rewrite the method and steps. Further, claim 13 is new.
The newly introduced limitations and/or the new claims were not present at the time of the preceding action. For this reason, the present 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
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.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0135958 (herein Kazemi) in view of US 2002/0165330 (herein Cady) and US 2004/0254309 (herein Parrish).
As to claims 1 and 13, Kazemi discloses a solution phase polymerization process for making an ethylene/1-octene copolymer (paragraph 97-104 and examples) in the presence of hydrogen in a single (one) continuous solution phase polymerization (CSTR reactor, see paragraph 166, 31, 328 and examples) at a temperature of 140° C or higher (paragraph 172, 176 and examples). The catalyst is shown below and is a single-site catalyst system (paragraph 11). See examples. A borate activator (activator, same utilized in the examples of the instant invention) is utilized. In the examples, it is observed that the stress exponent (S.Ex, see table 6A, etc.) changes with different ethylene concentration of ethylene, etc. Also see tables 5A and examples 1-2, etc. The catalyst is specifically diphenylmethylene(cyclopentadienyl)(2,7-di-t-butylfuorenyl)hafnium dimethyl of generic structure
PNG
media_image1.png
193
167
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(paragraph 60). Specifically mentioning diphenylmethylene(cyclopentadienyl)(2,7-di-t-butylfuorenyl)hafnium dichloride ([(2,7-tBu.sub.2Flu)Ph.sub.2C(Cp)HfMe.sub.2], abbreviated CpF-2, see paragraph 63 and 302), which has the structure
PNG
media_image2.png
232
300
media_image2.png
Greyscale
reading on claimed structure of claim 11, wherein Q=chloride (leaving group), G is carbon, R4=R5=phenyl, R1=hydrogen, R2=R3=tbutyl.
Kazemi is silent on controlling the parameters to have the copolymer have long chain branching factor (LCBF).
Cady discloses similar methods of producing ethylene copolymers (including octene) in a single continuous reactor. See abstract, paragraph 285 and examples. Cady teaches that the long chain branching (LCB, thus reading on claimed LCBF) is controlled to improve polymer characteristics such as processability and melt strength. See paragraph 3 and 394. Parish also teaches similar methods of producing polyethylenes. See paragraph 15 and examples. Parish teaches that the long chain branching (LCB) is increased by lower comonomer concentration (thus a lower mass ratio of octene to ethylene and reading on claimed condition iv), etc. See paragraph 79. Thus, it is evident that it is known in the art that one would want to increase or alter the LCBF to effect the properties such as processability and melt strength and one would do so by decreasing the mass ratio of octene:ethylene. In light of this information, one would have been motivated to change the ratio of octene:ethylene during or after runs when producing and optimizing the copolymer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to have modified the method of Kazemi to include targeting a LCBF for the copolymer and increasing/adjusting the LCBF by decreasing the mass ratio of 1-octene:ethylene as taught by parish because one would want to improve the processability and melt strength as taught by Cady.
As to claim 2, the ethylene content is generally taught as 9 to 17 wt%. See paragraph 185. These amounts are also exemplified in the examples.
As to claim 3, the pressure is varied from 14 to 18 MPa. See paragraph 301. Also see paragraph 174-178.
As to claim 4, the residence time is taught as 30 seconds to 180 second (3 minutes. See paragraph 182. Also see examples.
As to claims 5-7, the I2 has an upper limit of 1 dg/min (1 g/10min). See paragraph 199. Also see. e.g. example 1 with 0.93 g/10min in table 6A.
As to claims 8-9, the density is exemplified as 0.9045 g/cc (g/cm3). See example 1 in table 6A.
As to claim 11, the catalyst activator comprises an ionic activator, an alkyl alumoxane (e.g. methylalumoxane) and a hindered phenol. See paragraph 12. Also see paragraph 259 and examples showing methylalumoxane (MMAO-7); trityl tetrakis (pentafluoro-phenyl) borate; and 2,6-di-tert-butyl-4-ethylphenol.
As to claim 12, the temperature is up to 300 oC. See paragraph 171-177 and 259. Also see examples and table 5B showing mean temperatures of e.g. 180, 185 oC, etc.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
With respect to the new limitations, see the prior art rejections above. In summary, it is evident that it is known in the art that one would want to increase or alter the LCBF to effect the properties such as processability and melt strength and one would do so by decreasing the mass ratio of octene:ethylene. In light of this information, one would have been motivated to change the ratio of octene:ethylene during or after runs when producing and optimizing the copolymer.
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.
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