DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 4-6, 10-11 and 15 are currently under examination. Claim 12 is withdrawn from consideration. Claims 2-3, 7-9 and 13-14 have been cancelled. Claim 1 is amended.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/16/2026 has been entered.
Previous Grounds of Rejection
In the light of the amendments, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, is withdrawn.
In the light of the amendments, the rejection under Zhu et al. (US 2005/0176900 A1), in view of Li et al. (CN 102212154 A, Machine-generated English translation is attached ), further in view of Leinonen et al (US 7, 659, 223 B2) with respect to claims 1, 4-6, 10-11 and 15 is withdrawn.
New grounds of rejections are set forth below.
New Grounds of Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1, 4-6, 10-11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (US 2005/0176900 A1), in view of Leinonen et al (US 7, 659, 223 B2).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Zhu et al. teach a process of making catalyst particles 20 to about 150 microns ([0018]) use for olefin polymerization comprising
magnesium compound such as MgCl2 in solvent such as heptane and toluene (the claimed organic liquid reaction medium) with an alcohol including 2-ethylhexanol ([0024] and [0152])(applicant’s alcohol A), and an ether such as propylene glycol butyl ether with hydroxyl group and ether functional group as shown in the structure below ([0029]) (the instant claimed alcohol B) applicant’s step (a)),
PNG
media_image1.png
55
297
media_image1.png
Greyscale
mixing the resulting Mg-alkoxy compound mixture solution with an electron donor including a maleate having the structure as shown below ([0046]) to form a Mg complex solution thereof (the instant claimed (S1) or (a) ([0045], [0152], and Example 1):
PNG
media_image2.png
179
449
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
184
440
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As we see above, the electron donor taught by Zhu et al. is phthalate free electron donor which corresponds to the instant claimed maleates of formula (III), wherein R4 as being hydrogen and R3 ( the instant claimed R group of maleates of formula (III)) as being alkyl group. R1-3 groups contain from 1 to about 30 carbon atoms which encompass the instant claimed C1 to C12 alkyl. The word of “about” permits some tolerance.
"[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
The burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious different between the claimed product and the prior art product (In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802,218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See MPEP 2113.
As such, an internal electron donor maleate as shown above is introduced prior to preparing the solid catalyst component particles;
after cooled down to room temperature, a liquid TiCl4 (the instant claimed a compound of a transition metal) comprising greater than 50% mole of the Mg alkoxy compounds (applicant’s step (b) and (b2)),
filtering the resulting precipitates solid particle (the instant claimed (c), (c2), (d2) and (e2), and washing with hot (90 0C) toluene ([0061], [0067], and Example 1 [0152]).
Although Zhu et al. specifically discloses Group 2 metal dialkyl R2Mg and other the Group 2 metal compounds and the addition of Mg-complex to the compound of Ti as per applicant claims 1 and 10, Leinonen et al. teach process for olefin polymerization catalyst comprising Mg dialkoxides obtained by the reaction of MgCl2 or R2Mg (R is C1-C10 alkyl), and the addition of Mg-complex to TiCl4 solution (col. 8, lines 1-11, col. 10, lines 55-61).
Selection of the Mg-complex to the solution of TiCl4 (taught by Leinonen et al.) is prima facie obvious as one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, given the general conditions taught by Leinonen et al.
In light of the disclosure of Leinonen et al. of the equivalence and interchangeability of MgCl2 as disclosed in Zhu et al. ([0024]), with R2Mg as presently claimed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the invention was made, to substitute the MgCl2 of Zhu et al. with the R2Mg taught by Leinonen et al. as an alternative Group 2 metal compound to obtain the invention as specified in the claims 1 and 10, and one of ordinary skill in the art would expect to achieve the same beneficial results and same function, absent evidence to the contrary.
No separate external carrier material of silica is used to form the olefin polymerization catalyst component into solid catalyst as the instant claims.
Since both Zhu et al. and Leinonen et al. teach process of making olefin polymerization catalysts starting with MgCl2, one would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 4, as discussed above, Zhu et al. teach glycol ether 1,3-propylene glycol n-butyl ether ([0029]).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, as discussed above, the catalyst taught by the combined references of Leinonen et al. and Zhu et al. contains magnesium and titanium metals.
Regarding claim 11, although Zhu et al. do not specifically disclose a continuously process as per applicant claim 11, Leinonen et al. teach process for olefin polymerization catalyst carried out a full-continuously process (Col. 9, line 64-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine use a full-continuously process taught by Leinonen et al. in the process taught by the combined references of Li et al. and Zhu et al. to obtain the invention as specified in the claim 11, motivated by the fact that the full-continuously process saves the time remarkable (col. 9, line 64-co. 10, line 7).
Since all of Li et al, Zhu et al. and Leinonen et al. teach process of making olefin polymerization catalysts, one would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 15, as discussed above, Zhu et al. teach the catalyst obtained from 2-etyhylhexanol and an ether compound selected from d-butyl ether and propylene glycol butyl ether, in a molar ratio about 4:1 (Example 1, [0152]).
Although Zhu et al. do not specifically teach the molar ratio of alcohol (A) to alcohol (B) 2:1 to 1:2 as per applicant claim 15, when faced with a mixture, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated by common sense to select a 1:1 ratio, a ratio that falls within the presently claimed amount, absent evidence of unexpected or surprising results. Case law holds that "[h]aving established that this knowledge was in the art, the examiner could then properly rely... on a conclusion of obviousness, 'from common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art within any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference.'" In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Response to Arguments
With regards to the previous Grounds of Rejection
Applicant's arguments filed 02/19/2026 with respect to claims 1, 4-6, 10-11 and 15 have been considered but are not persuasive. The examiner would like to take this opportunity to address the Applicant's arguments.
Applicant’s arguments against the reference of Leinonen et al. are not found persuasive (Remarks, pages 14-15).
Because, note that while Zhu et al. do not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Leinonen al. is used as teaching reference, and therefore, it is not necessary for this reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches a certain concept, namely R2Mg, and in combination with the reference of Zhu et al, discloses the presently claimed invention as set forth above.
As such, the rejection of claim 1 is proper and stands.
The rejection for the remaining claims were either directly or indirectly dependent thereon stands.
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 YUN QIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5834. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10:00am-4:00pm.
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, Sally A Merkling can be reached at 571-272-6297. 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.
/YUN QIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738