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 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.
Claims 1-3, 6-12, 14-19, 21-29, 36-40, and 53-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Englehorn (WO 2018/080701) in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2006/0281859).
Considering Claims 1-3 and 21: Englehorn teaches a process comprising introducing via a first line a mixture of a catalyst and an aliphatic diluent (¶0026, Fig. 2); introducing via a second line a mixture of an activator and an aliphatic diluent (¶0026; Fig. 2); operating the reactor under processing conditions (¶0021); and obtaining an effluent comprising a polyolefin (¶0024).
Englehorn is silent towards the temperature delta during the process. However, Suzuki et al. teaches controlling the reaction of polyolefin within 2 degrees of the desired temperature (¶0134). Englehorn and Suzuki et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely polyolefin polymerization. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have controlled the process temperature of Englehorn within two degrees Celsius, as in Suzuki et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, as Suzuki et al. suggests, to prevent variation in the molecular weight of the final product (¶0133).
Considering Claims 6-9: Englehorn teaches the diluent as comprising a C6 to C20 hydrocarbon (¶0026). A person of ordinary skill in the art would immediately envision hexane, isohexane, heptane, octane or dodecane from this teaching.
Considering Claims 10-12: Englehorn teaches the diluent as being free of aromatic compounds (¶0026).
Considering Claims 14 and 17: Englehorn teaches the concentration of the catalyst and the activator as being 10 weight percent (Table 1).
Considering Claim 15 and 18: Englehorn does not teach the claimed concentration of catalyst and activator in the solutions. However, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the concentration of the catalyst and activator through routine experimentation, and the motivation for doing so would have been to control the viscosity of the solution in the line by reducing the solids content.
Considering Claims 16 and 19: Englehorn teaches the catalyst and activator flow as being 0.01 L/hr (about 0.02 L/ hr) (Table 1). Englehorn teaches that the rate of the catalyst addition controls the temperature in the reactor (¶0019). As the ratio of the catalyst to the activator affects the reaction rate, the rate of the addition of the activator would also control the reactor temperature. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the rate of the catalyst and activator addition through routine experimentation, and the motivation to do so would have been, to increase the reaction rate while still controlling the temperature of the reaction.
Considering Claims 22-24: Englehorn does not teach introducing aromatics into the process.
Considering Claims 25-27: Englehorn teaches the process of claim 1 as shown above. Englehorn teaches that the product can be polypropylene, a polyethylene plastomer or an ethylene propylene rubber (¶0012). Englehorn teaches the reaction temperature as being 50 to 170 ºC (¶0019).
Englehorn does not teach the claimed pressure. However, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the reaction temperature and pressure through routine experimentation, and the motivation to do so would have been, to control the reaction kinetics and the final molecular weight of the product.
Considering Claims 28 and 29: Englehorn teaches the catalyst as being
PNG
media_image1.png
182
452
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where M, X, and T meet the claimed limitations (¶0029).
Considering Claim 36-40: Englehorn teaches the activator as being a tetra(perfluoronapthyl)borate with a trialkylammonium cation (¶0036).
Considering Claim 53: Englehorn teaches the catalyst as being a metallocene catalyst (¶0005).
Considering Claim 54: Englehorn teaches injecting the activator directly into the reactor (Fig. 2).
Considering Claim 55: Englehorn teaches that the rate of catalyst addition controls the reaction temperature (¶0019), and thus would also control the change in reaction temperature.
.
Claims 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Englehorn (WO 2018/080701) in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2006/0281859) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mink et al. (US Pat. 7,129,302).
Considering Claim 30: Englehorn teaches the process of claim 1 as shown above.
Englehorn does not teach the claimed metallocene catalyst. However, Mink et al. teaches using bis(cyclopentadienyl)zirconium dichloride as the metallocene catalyst for polyolefin preparation (3:63-4:15). Englehorn and Mink et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely polyolefin polymerization. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have used the catalyst of Mink et al. as the metallocene catalyst of Englehorn, and the motivation to do so would have been, as Mink et al. suggests, it is a known polymerization catalyst for polyolefins.
Claims 31, 32, 34, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Englehorn (WO 2018/080701) in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2006/0281859) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Crowther et al. (US 2010/0029873).
Considering Claims 31, 32, 34, and 35: Englehorn teaches the process of claim 1 as shown above.
Englehorn does not teach the claimed metallocene catalyst. However, Crowther et al. teaches using dimethylsilyl bis(indenyl)zirconium dichloride or dimethyl as the metallocene catalyst for polyolefin preparation (¶0094). Englehorn and Crowther et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely polyolefin polymerization. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have used the catalyst of Crowther et al. as the metallocene catalyst of Englehorn, and the motivation to do so would have been, as Crowther et al. suggests, it is a known polymerization catalyst for polyolefins.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Englehorn (WO 2018/080701) in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2006/0281859) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Canich et al. (US Pat. 6,423,795).
Considering Claim 33: Englehorn teaches the process of claim 1 as shown above.
Englehorn does not teach the claimed metallocene catalyst. However, Canich et al. teaches using dimethylsilyl (tetramethylcyclopentadienyl)(cyclododecylamido)titanium dimethyl as the metallocene catalyst for polyolefin preparation (5:46-47). Englehorn and Canich et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely polyolefin polymerization. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have used the catalyst of Cancich et al. as the metallocene catalyst of Englehorn, and the motivation to do so would have been, as Canich et al. suggests, it is a known polymerization catalyst for polyolefins.
Claims 41-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Englehorn (WO 2018/080701) as applied to claims 1 and 36 above, and further in view of Sun et al. (US 2018/0201696).
Considering Claim 41-45: Englehorn teaches the process of claims 1 and 36 as shown above. Englehorn teaches the activator as being a tetra(perfluoronapthyl)borate or tetra(perfluorophenyl)borate with a trialkylammonium cation (¶0036).
Englehorn does not teach the claimed cation. However, Sun et al. teaches using di(octadecyl)methylammonium tetrakis(pentafluorophenyl)borate as the activator for a metallocene catalyst (¶0028). Englehorn and Sun et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely polyolefin polymerization. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have used the cation of Sun et al. in the activator of Englehorn, and the motivation to do so would have been, as Sun et al. suggest, they are highly soluble in aliphatic solvents (¶0007).
Claims 46-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Englehorn (WO 2018/080701) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Whelan et al. (US 2018/0009135).
Considering Claims 46-52: Englehorn teaches the process of claim 1 as shown above.
Englehorn is silent towards the properties of the final product. However, Whelan et al. teaches using a metallocene catalyst to form a propylene ethylene copolymer having an ethylene content of about 5 to 30 weight percent (¶0062), preferably 9 to 15 weight percent (¶0086); a density of 0.84 to 0.92 g/cc (¶0074); a melt index of less than 10 g/10 min (¶0075); a melt flow rate of 2.5 to 25 g/10 min (¶0076); a Shore D hardness of 10 to 50 (¶0082) and a Vicat softening temperature of less than 100 ºC (¶0084). Whelan et al. teaches that the propylene units can be isotactic (¶0069-71). Englehorn and Whelan et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely polypropylene copolymers. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have prepared polymers having the claimed properties, and the motivation to do so would have been, as Whelan et al. suggests, they have utility in thermoplastic vulcanizates.
Claim 56 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Englehorn (WO 2018/080701) in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2006/0281859) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Canich et al. (US 2023/0348634).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Considering Claim 56: Englehorn and Suzuki et al. collectively teach the process of claim 1 as shown above.
Englehorn does not teach the claimed activator. However, Canich et al. teaches using N-methyl-4-nonadecyl-N-octadecylbenzenaminium tetrakis(perfluoronaphthalen-2-yl)borate as an activator for polyolefin polymerization (¶0282). Englehorn and Canich et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely polyolefin polymerization. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have use the activator of Canich et al. as the activator of Englehorn, and the motivation to do so would have been, as Canich et al. suggests, it is a known activator for the polymerization process.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 18, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, because:
A) The applicant’s argument that Suzuki et al. does not teach the claimed temperature delta is not persuasive. Suzuki et al. teaches “rapid elevation of reaction temperature may lead to runaway reaction. Therefore, temperature change in time course in a batch system is maintained within 10.degree. C., preferably within 5.degree. C. and particularly preferably within 2.degree. C., as temperature difference between locations of flow pass direction in a tubular continuous system.” (¶0134).
B) In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the exclusion of intentionally controlling the reaction temperature) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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).
The claims do not recite the means for controlling the temperature delta, nor do they exclude the use of means such as heat transfer jacketing used in Englehorn and Suzuki. In fact, the instant specification teaches that “[r]eaction heat is removed through the loop wall since much of the reactor is in the form of a double-jacketed pipe” (¶0090).
C) The applicant’s argument that Englehorn does not teach adding the catalyst and activator by separate lines is not persuasive. As the applicant cites, Englehorn teaches “the activator is contacted with the catalyst prior to entering the polymerization reactor or concurrently while the catalyst is in the polymerization reactor with monomers” (¶0036). This is illustrated in Fig. 2, which shows that the cocatalyst/activator is added in the same line as the catalyst, or by a separate line into the polymerization reaction.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIAM J HEINCER whose telephone number is (571)270-3297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/LIAM J HEINCER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767