DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment of claims 1, 6 are supported by the specification. The new claim 21 is supported by the specification.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant's amendment filed on 3/6/2026. Thus, the following action is properly made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3-9, 19, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran et al (WO 2019/229209).
Claim 1, 6, 8, 21: Tran teaches a process comprising: (i) polymerizing ethylene in a first polymerization stage in the presence of a Ziegler-Natta catalyst to prepare a first ethylene homopolymer; (ii) polymerizing ethylene in a second polymerization stage in the presence of said catalyst and said first ethylene homopolymer to prepare an ethylene homopolymer mixture comprising said first ethylene homopolymer and a second ethylene homopolymer; and (iii) polymerizing ethylene and at least one alpha-olefin comonomer in a third polymerization stage in the presence of said catalyst and said ethylene homopolymer mixture to prepare said multimodal HDPE. The multimodal high density polyethylene (HDPE) has a density of 940 to 970 kg/m3, Mz of at least 680k and a melt flow rate (MFR5) of 0.5 to 20.0 g/l0 min (3:5-25, 6:7). The split for the third polymerization stage is 30-70% (13:24-27). The polymer has a Mw/Mn of 18-30 (7:1-6) and a flow rate ratio MFR21/MFR5 is at least 18.5 (6:12-14). Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 3, 9: Tran teaches the multimodal HDPE has MFR2 of 0.1-4 g/10min (3:18). Case law holds that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Claim 4: the first and second polymerization stages are carried out in a slurry loop reactor (10:32-11:1).
Claim 5: the third polymerization stage is carried out in a gas phase reactor (13:14-15).
Claim 7, 19: the alpha olefin is butene (13:13).
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-8, 19, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chatchai et al (EP3293214).
Chatchai teaches a process comprising: (i) polymerizing ethylene in a first polymerization stage in the presence of a Ziegler-Natta catalyst to prepare a first ethylene homopolymer; (ii) polymerizing ethylene in a second polymerization stage in the presence of said catalyst and said first ethylene homopolymer to prepare an ethylene homopolymer mixture comprising said first ethylene homopolymer and a second ethylene homopolymer; and (iii) polymerizing ethylene and at least one alpha-olefin comonomer, butene, in a third polymerization stage in the presence of said catalyst and said ethylene homopolymer mixture to prepare said multimodal PE [0027]. The multimodal polyethylene has a density of 930 to 965 kg/m3 [0039], Mz of at least 1000 k [table 2, 0038], a Mw/Mn of greater than 28-40 (table 2), and a melt flow rate (MI5) of 0.24-0.37 g/l0 min (table 2). The polymer has a MFR21 of 0.01-5 g/10min [0034], a flow rate ratio of MI21/MI5 of 24-31 (table 2). The split for the third polymerization stage is 20-60% (0034). Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument regarding unexpected results, the data have been fully considered, however, they are insufficient to establish unexpected results given that 1) CE1 is FB1520 which is a bimodal polyethylene and not the closest prior art. Therefore the comparison between CE1 and IE6 is not a fair comparison. It is unclear the advanced properties of IE6 is due to the trimodal feature, the split in the third stage or other features such as Mz. 2) case law holds that the disclosure of a reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or specific working examples therein. 3) the data is not reasonably commensurate in scope with the scope of claims. Case law holds that evidence is insufficient to rebut a prima facie case if not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 741, 218 USPQ 769, 777 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WENWEN CAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3590. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached on (571)272-1130. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WENWEN CAI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763