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 .
Claim Status
The claims are newly amended.
Response to Arguments
Since the claims are newly amended, the remarks are moot given the new treatment of the claims.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alliger (WO 2018/048533) and evidenced by Mortis “Yttrium tris(trimethylsilylmethyl) complexes grafted onto MCM-48 mesoporous silica nanoparticles”, and in view of Cullen (KR 20200053567) and in view of Farias et al. “Thermogravimetry as a reliable tool to estimate the density of silanol on a silica gel surface” and in view of Getsoian et al. “Silica-supported, single-site Sc and Y. . “.
As to Claims 1, 4, 5, 6 and 12, Alliger describes a method of making a catalyst (page 41, lines 12-17) used for ethylene polymerization (abstract and title). The process employs a compound with a formula I (see page 8, lines 5-9). The compound includes a metal, M, which can be a metal in group 3, such as scandium or yttrium (page 8, lines 5-8). This compound is then supported on a support, such as silica (page 9, lines 16-18).
As to the method of making, Alliger teaches first drying the support by heating or calcining the silica support at a temperature from 100-1,000 degrees C (page 27, lines 25-27). Alliger explains that the calcined support (page 27, lines 29-30), meaning the support after calcination treatment, has at least some reactive hydroxyl groups in order to produce the final catalyst product (page 27, lines 29-30). Although Alliger does not specifically teach that the treated silica support leaves silanol groups on the surface of the silica support, since the process of heating is the same using the same support, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the silica would have at least some of the same silanol groups on the surface. Nonetheless, this feature is taught by the Cullen reference below.
The silica support, having reactive surface groups, typically hydroxyl groups, is then slurried in a solvent and then contacted with a solution containing at least polymerization catalyst comprising at least one metallocene compound and an activator (page 27, lines 30-32 and page 28, lines 1-4). The polymerization catalyst can be the compound of formula I on page 8.
As to the compound DmMX1X2R,
m of Claim 1 can be zero.
M can be either Y or Sc (page 8, line 8).
The R groups R1 and R15 can be hydrocarbyl or a substituted hydrocarbyl or -E(R)n- where E can be one of carbon, silicon or one of those compounds listed in page 8 (page 8, lines 14-15).
As to X1X2, , Alliger teaches that some of the R groups, specifically R1 and R15 can be -E(R)n-, where E is silicon and R can be a hydrocarbyl (page 9, lines 9-11) and the n integer can have a value of 1, 2 or 3 (page 9, line 11). Meanwhile, the other R groups, R1 to R14 can each independently be a hydrogen, a hydrocarbyl or a substituted hydrocarbyl (page 9, lines 9-12).
As to the composition being an anion, the specification of this application states that the yttrium precursor used can have the formula: Y{1,3-C3H3(SiMe3)2}3 (see example 1, catalyst 1). Similarly, the R1 and R15 of Alliger can have the composition (SiMe3)2 given the above formula.
Therefore, since this part of the composition is the same, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the same compound would have the same anionic properties.
As to the reaction of the metallocene with the silica support producing a complex that reacts a silanol with the metal of the complex to form a M-O-Si bond on the surface of the support, although Alliger does not specifically teach this feature, since the process steps are the same and hydroxyl groups are formed on the support from heat prior to contact these groups with the metal precursor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the same process using the same compounds would produce the same bonds.
Nonetheless, Mortis describes the bonds formed with an yttrium-complex is graphed onto a silica support.
Mortis describes the mechanisms of grafting a tris(alkyl) yttrium-containing complex (page 1075, right col, last few lines) with a silica support (abstract). The two were mixed under ambient conditions (page 1076, left col, lines 4-7). The bonds formed between the two are show in Scheme 2, where the silica is bonded to an oxygen and that oxygen is then bonded to the metal (see scheme 2). This bond was shown to be the majority of the bonds between the two compounds (see scheme 2).
Therefore, when combined at ambient temperature, the yttrium complex and silica support are known to bond by connecting the surface oxygen of the silica with the yttrium of the complex.
As to the silanol group concentration on the surface corresponding to at least 0.5 OH/nm2 and less than or equal to 2.0 OH/nm2, the specification of this application explains that the silanol groups are measured by titrating of the OH groups of the silanol (see published specification, para. 33).
Cullen describes a catalyst that has a modified silica support (abstract). The catalyst contains a silica support that has isolated silanol groups (abstract, para. 2). The silica can be modified with a metal, such as yttrium (Claim 16). Prior to attaching the metal, Cullen teaches that a commercially obtained silica compound is heated to obtain a silanol concentration of 0.8 OH/nm2 as measured by a TGA analysis (see example 1).
Cullen does not specifically state that the silanol concentration measured using the TGA (Thermogravimetric Analysis) determines the silanol group at the surface of the silica.
Farias explains that when use of thermogravimetry to determine the silanol groups in silica (abstract), the analysis is used to determine silanol groups on the surface of the silica (Introduction, para. 1). Particularly, heating causes formation of water, which is the condensation of the silanol groups and represents two silanol groups on the silica surface (page 753, “Results and Discussion”, para. 3, 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the process of using thermogravimetric analysis in Cullen calculates the silanol groups at the surface of the silica, as explained by Farias because Farias explains that this method of analysis is designed to calculate the silanol groups at the surface of the silica and that the silanol groups in silica are surface-groups.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a silica with silanol groups in Alliger and Mortis with a concentration of silanol groups of 0.8 OH nm2, as explained by Cullen because Cullen states that this amount is effective for attaching a metal to the silica, which would lead to predictable and expected results.
As to the silica being dehydroxylated, the specification of this application explains that this is produced by calcination under heat at about a temperature of 550 degrees C (see published specification, para. 6, 31). Since the reference heat at this temperature range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the same process conditions would produce the same results.
As to the amount of Y or Sc attached to silica, the references do not describe the amount of metal attached to the silica in terms of weight %.
Getsoian describes an yttrium attached to a silica by-way of the silanol groups (see abstract and figure in abstract). The metal is grafted onto the silica (page 3678, left col, para. 1) and used for a number of different catalytic reactions (page 3678, left col, para. 2). The amount of Y used in one example is about 5.8% (see page 3680, right col, last para).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ yttrium in an amount of 5.8%, as taught by Getsoian for use with the metal-modified silica, as taught by Alliger, evidenced by Mortis, Cullen and Farias because this concentration is known to be effective for catalysis and therefore lead to predictable and expected results.
As to Claim 3, Alliger teaches that the calcined support (page 27, lines 29-30), meaning the support after calcination treatment, has at least some reactive hydroxyl groups in order to produce the final catalyst product (page 27, lines 29-30).
The reactive surface groups, typically hydroxyl groups, of the support, is then slurried in a solvent and then contacted with a solution containing at least polymerization catalyst comprising at least one metallocene compound and an activator (page 27, lines 30-32 and page 28, lines 1-4). The process does not describe adding any intermediate compounds prior to contacting the support with the polymerization catalyst.
As to Claim 10, Alliger teaches various composition variations (see above). In some of those embodiments, m would be 0.
As to Claim 11, Getsoian teaches that the silica can be modified with Sc in an amount of 3wt% (page 3679, left col. para. 3).
The obviousness statement applied to Claim 1 is re-iterated here.
As to Claim 24, Alliger teaches that the silica support material is calcined prior to contact with the metal (page 27, lines 24-32). The addition of other compounds to is optional (see page 26, lines 23-32), therefore in some embodiments, the additional components are not added. The addition of the activator is co-current and therefore not prior (see page 28, lines 1-5).
Claim(s) 7, 8, 9, 10, 22, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alliger, evidenced by Mortis, Cullen, Farias and Getsoian as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tsubokawa (US Pub.: 2009/0121180).
As to Claims 7, 8, 22 and 23, Alliger teaches that the R compounds 7 and 15 can be -E(R)n-, where E can be silicon and R can be a substituted hydrocarbyl and n can be 3 (page 8, lines 13-18). The R group can be a hydrocarbyl or substituted hydrocarbyl (page 8, lines 16-20). The reference does not teach that the composition is an allyl group or a substituted allyl group.
Tsubokawa describes a silica particle (abstract) having an R-group attached, as shown in Fig. 1 at para. 7. The R1 group can be a hydrocarbon group with a C of 1-10 (para. 7). In some embodiments, the R group can be a methyl, ethyl, propyl or one of the groups listed in para. 17). Alternatively, Tsubokawa states that the R group can be an allyl group and that any of the groups cited can be in the form of a substituted group (para. 17).
The R-group containing silicon is then grafted with a metal, which can include yttrium (para. 66).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ an allyl group, as taught by Tsubokawa as the hydrocarbon group represented as the R group attached to the Si in Alliger, evidenced by Mortis, Cullen, Farias and Getsoian because allyl groups are known hydrocarbons, which are useable to connect with Si group for further grafting of a yttrium metal for productive use of the product.
As to Claim 9, Alliger teaches that the R groups 7 and 15 can be -E(R)n-, where E can be carbon or Si and R can be a substituted hydrocarbyl and n can be 1-3 (page 8, lines 5-25). The reference does not teach the compound of Claim 9.
Tsubokawa teaches that the R group can be an allyl group (para. 17) where the carbon atoms range from 1-10 carbons (para. 16). The R groups can also include alkenyl groups (para. 17) with a carbon atom of 1-10 (para. 16). There can be 3 Rs groups (see para. 16, formula (1)).
Tsubkawa does not specifically teach if the allyl or alkenyl groups in the form has a linear, branched or cyclic structure, but since these include all the possible forms of a hydrocarbon, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the allyl is in the form of one of these.
The obviousness statement for Claims 7 and 8 is reiterated here.
As to Claim 10, Alliger teaches various composition variations (see above). In some of those embodiments, m would be 0.
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 SHENG HAN DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5823. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Fung Coris can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/SHENG H DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 March 18, 2026