DETAILED ACTION
This communication responds to the application filed July 14, 2023, and the Response to Restriction Requirement and amended claim set filed March 26, 2026. Claims 1-12 are currently pending.
Non-elected claims 1-3, 7, 8, and 10 are WITHDRAWN. New claims 11 and 12 are also treated as WITHDRAWN for the reasons set forth below.
Elected claims 4-6 and 9 are REJECTED for the reasons set forth below.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 4-6 and 9 in the reply filed on March 26, 2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant also filed an amended claim set adding new claims 11 and 12, which depend from claim 4. However, the process in claim 11 results in a supported titanium complex, whereas the elected Group II relates to an unsupported titanium complex. Claim 11 is essentially a restatement of withdrawn claim 7, which recites a process of preparing a supported titanium complex. As such, claim 11 is more appropriately part of Group III, which is withdrawn. Similarly, claim 12 corresponds to withdrawn claim 10, which is also part of Group III. As such, new claims 11 and 12 are also WITHDRAWN. Elected claims 4-6 and 9 are under examination.
Priority
This application claims priority to IN 2022-21040672, filed July 15, 2022. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Initial Comments
The examiner notes that references are cited in its Specification, and that corresponding foreign prosecutions refer to various references. The examiner asks that Applicant disclose these references in an IDS to ensure completeness of the record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 4-6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation that m and n are real numbers ranging from 1 to 4 results in nonsensical titanium halide compounds. The examiner suggests that the titanium compounds are more appropriately Ti(III) and Ti(IV) compounds, and the formula of claim 4 should be written as such.
Claims 5, 6, and 9 depend from claim 4 and do not correct its deficiencies. Thus, they are also indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ch. Gagieva et al., “First example of cationic titanium (III) complexes with crown ether as catalysts for ethylene polymerization,” Eur. Polym. J. 170 (2022) 111166.
Regarding claim 4, Ch. Gagieva teaches the following process:
PNG
media_image1.png
193
393
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Ch. Gagieva, p. 2.)
Regarding claim 9, Ch. Gagieva teaches that its Ti(III) complexes are contacted with ethylene monomer to produce UHMWPE. (p. 3.)
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.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ch. Gagieva et al., “First example of cationic titanium (III) complexes with crown ether as catalysts for ethylene polymerization,” Eur. Polym. J. 170 (2022) 111166.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Ch. Gagieva teaches all of the limitations of claim 4. (See paragraph 15 above, which is incorporated by reference herein.)
The difference between the Method 1 of Ch. Gagieva and the present claims is that the reaction temperatures of Method 1 and the temperatures of claim differ. However, differences in temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. (MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).) "[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) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.).) In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized through routine experimentation the reaction temperatures of the process of Ch. Gagieva.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kortbeek et al. (US 4,195,069) in view of Ch. Gagieva et al., “First example of cationic titanium (III) complexes with crown ether as catalysts for ethylene polymerization,” Eur. Polym. J. 170 (2022) 111166.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Kortbeek teaches the following process:
PNG
media_image2.png
419
435
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Kortbeek, Abstract.) Regarding claim 5 specifically, the temperature of the reaction of complexing agent and TiCl4 is preferably 90°C. (See Table 1.)
The difference between the teachings of Kortbeek and claim 4 is that Kortbeek does not disclose the recited complexing agents. However, such complexing agents used for forming unsupported titanium complexes are known in the art. For example, Ch. Gagieva teaches forming a TiCl3 complex by mixing TiCl4 with a crown ether. (Ch. Gagieva, p. 2.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the crown ether of Ch. Gagieva in place of the preferred diethyl ethers of Kortbeek (see col. 2, lines 65-68) because both are known to be useful complexing agents for Ti halides. (See MPEP 2143(I)(B).)
Regarding claim 6, the organoaluminum compound of Kortbeek is preferably triethylaluminum and diethylaluminum chloride. (col. 3, lines 18-20.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE S BRANCH whose telephone number is (571)270-3539. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday.
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 at 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 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.
CATHERINE S. BRANCH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1763
/CATHERINE S BRANCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights