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 .
Claims 1-2, 6, 13, and 22 have been amended. Claims 9, 14-15, and 17-18 are cancelled. Claims 1-8, 10-13, 16, and 19-25 are pending in the instant application. Claims 5-8 remain withdrawn. Claims 1-4, 10-13, 16, and 19-25 (in part) are under examination on the merits.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment by Applicant’s representative Madeline Edwards on 07/29/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Claim rejection under 35 U.S.C.§112(b)
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1-2, 6, 13, and 22 overcome all the reactions. The rejections are hereby withdrawn.
Claim rejection under 35 U.S.C.§102(a)(1)
Applicant amended claim 1 by deleting “about” from the claimed limitations of temperature and pressure. In addition, Applicant argued that previously cited Harlan reference (the `499 publication) fails to teach at least "distilling the solution at a pressure of greater than 0.5 atm to form a supported alumoxane precursor, wherein the precursor comprises from 0 wt % to 50 wt % of the aliphatic hydrocarbon fluid based on the total weight of the precursor," as recited in independent claim 1 as being amended because Harlan (Example 4B; para. 192) describes vacuum solvent removal. Because Applicant amended claim 1 by replacing “distillation at from about 0.5 atm to about 1 atm” with “distillation at from 0.5 atm to 1 atm”, cited Harlan reference’s disclosure of "removed under vacuum" no longer reads on claim 1 as being amended. The rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Non-status double patenting rejection
Applicant fails to response to the double patenting rejection. The rejection is maintained.
Claim objection
Applicant fails to response to the claim objection. The objection is maintained.
The following rejections are necessitated by the amendment on 07/29/2026:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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 of this title, 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 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 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.
Claims 1-4, 10-13, 16, and 19-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2019/127,499 (“the `499 publication”) to Harlan et al.
Applicant’s claim 1 is drawn to a process for prepare a supported alumoxane, comprising: (a) forming a solution by, in an aliphatic hydrocarbon fluid, combining at least one hydrocarbyl aluminum with at least one non-hydrolytic oxygen-containing compound and a support material, wherein the molar ratio of aluminum to non-hydrolytic oxygen in the solution is greater than or equal to 1.5, wherein the aliphatic hydrocarbon fluid has a boiling point of less than 70 degrees Celsius, and wherein the combining is conducted at a temperature of less than 70 degrees Celsius; (b) distilling the solution at a pressure of greater than 0.5 atm to form a supported alumoxane precursor, wherein the precursor comprises from 0 wt % to 50 wt % of the aliphatic hydrocarbon fluid based on the total weight of the precursor; and (c) heating the precursor to a temperature greater than the boiling point of the aliphatic hydrocarbon fluid and less than 160 degrees Celsius to form a supported alumoxane.
The `499 publication (Abstract) discloses methods for preparing a catalyst system comprising contacting in an aliphatic solvent at least one support material, at least one hydrocarbyl aluminum compound and at least one non-hydrolytic active oxygen-containing compound to form a supported alumoxane (catalyst precursor) and contacting the supported alumoxane with at least one catalyst compound having a Group 3 through Group 12 metal atom or lanthanide metal atom. The supported alumoxane may be heated prior to contact with the catalyst compound. Example 4 of the `499 publication [0192] discloses a specific example of a method for preparing a catalyst system comprising mixing AlMe3 (hydrocarbyl aluminum compound) with 25 ml of dried and degassed n-pentane (aliphatic solvent having boiling point of 36.1°C). The resulting solution was cooled to -20°C (wherein the combining is conducted at a temperature of less than about 70 degrees Celsius), and added the methacrylic acid (non-hydrolytic active oxygen-containing compound of the formula (I)). After stirring for about 10 minutes the pentene was dried down and then 3.0 ml of pentane was added. The silica (ES70-875) was added to this in a semi-incipient wetness technique and this resulting paste was stirred with a spatula for several minutes. The pentane was then removed under vacuum (Example-4B), Yield=3.18 g. 1.53 g of the resulting dry, free flowing powder was heated in a sealed tube for 16 h at 120° C, to give a colorless free flowing powder (Example-4C). In terms of step (b) “distilling the solution at a pressure of greater than about 0.5 atm”, Example 4 of the `499 publication [0192] teaches the pentane was then removed under vacuum, wherein “under vacuum” refers to an environment with significantly reduced atmospheric pressure, often used in laboratory or industrial settings to remove air, moisture, or volatile substances. One ordinary skilled in the art would have known that “remove pentane under vacuum” reads on the step (b) distilling the solution at a pressure of greater than about 0.5 atm. The step of “1.53 g of the resulting dry, free flowing powder was heated in a sealed tube for 16 h at 120° C” reads on step (b) wherein the precursor comprises from about 0 wt % to about 50 wt % of the aliphatic hydrocarbon fluid based on the total weight of the precursor, and step (c) of claim 1.
The difference between the process of claim 1 and the process of Example 4 of the `499 publication [0192] is the prior art does not specifically disclose the step (b) of claim 1 “distilling the solution at a pressure of greater than 0.5 atm”. Instead, the `499 publication [0192] teaches the aliphatic hydrocarbon fluid of pentane was removed under vacuum (Example-4B), Yield=3.18 g of the resulting dry, free flowing powder.
However, the difference would have been taught and/or suggested by the same prior art. According to Wikipedia, “vacuum distillation” or “distillation under reduced pressure” is a type of distillation performed under reduced pressure, which allows the purification of compounds not readily distilled at ambient pressures or simply to save time or energy. One ordinary skilled in the art would have known that a reduced pressure includes a pressure of greater than 0.5 atm and less than 1 atm for a solvent (pentane) distillation. The resulting product of a dry, and free flowing powder suggests the precursor comprising close to 0 wt% of the aliphatic hydrocarbon fluid based on the total weight of the precursor. Therefore, the `499 publication would have rendered claim 1 obvious.
In terms of claim 2 wherein the precursor comprises from about 1 wt% to about 20 wt% of aliphatic hydrocarbon fluid based on the total weight of the concentrate, Example 4 of the `499 publication [0192] teaches the pentane was then removed under vacuum, and 1.53 g of the obtained 3.18 g of the resulting dry, free flowing powder was heated to obtained the supported alumoxane, wherein the resulting dry, free flowing powder reads on the limitation “the precursor comprises from about 1 wt% to about 20 wt% of aliphatic hydrocarbon fluid based on the total weight of the concentrate”.
In terms of claim 3 wherein heating the precursor produces volatile compounds and derivatives thereof, and wherein the process further comprises removing at least a portion of the volatile compounds and derivatives thereof, Example 4 of the `499 publication [0192] teaches after stirring for about 10 minutes the pentene was dried down… The pentane was then removed under vacuum (Example-4B), which inherently including the step of “heating the precursor produces volatile compounds and derivatives thereof, and wherein the process further comprises removing at least a portion of the volatile compounds and derivatives thereof”.
In terms of claim 4, wherein the at least one non-hydrolytic oxygen-containing compound comprises one or more compounds represented by the Formula (I)
PNG
media_image1.png
130
190
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, Example 4 of the `499 publication [0192] teaches methacrylic acid was used as a non-hydrolytic active oxygen-containing compound of the formula (I).
In terms of claim 10, wherein the aliphatic hydrocarbon fluid has a boiling point of at least 40 degrees Celsius less that the boiling point of the hydrocarbyl aluminum, Example 4 of the `499 publication [0192] teaches the aliphatic hydrocarbon fluid is n-pentene (b.p.= 36.1°C), and the boiling point (b.p.) of the hydrocarbyl aluminum (i.e., AlMe3) is 125-127 °C, which reads on claim 10.
In terms of claim 11, the `499 publication [0192] teaches the aliphatic hydrocarbon fluid is n-pentene, which reads on claim 11, wherein the aliphatic hydrocarbon fluid is pentane.
In terms of claims 12-13, Example 4 of the `499 publication [0192] teaches the at least one hydrocarbyl aluminum is AlMe3, which reads on wherein the at least one hydrocarbyl aluminum comprises one or more compounds represented by the formula R1R2R3Al, wherein each of R1, R2, and R3 is independently a C1 to C20 alkyl group.
In terms of claim 16, Example 4 of the `499 publication [0192] teaches the support material is silica (ES70-875), and the aliphatic solvent is dried and degassed n-pentane. In addition, the `499 publication (claim 3) teaches the support material has an average particle size between 1 and 200 microns, an average pore volume of between 0.05 and 5 mL/g, and a surface area between 50 and 800 m2/g. The `499 publication (claim 4) teaches the support material has been treated with one or more of a Bronsted acid, a Lewis acid, a salt and a Lewis base.
In terms of claim 19, Example 4 of the `499 publication [0192] teaches a method for preparing a catalyst system under the condition listed in TABLE 4 as following:
PNG
media_image2.png
244
656
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
In terms of claim 20, further comprising (d) introducing at least one catalyst compound, and optionally a continuity additive, to the supported alumoxane to form a catalyst system, the `499 publication (claim 22) teaches a method for preparing a catalyst system comprising contacting the supported alumoxane of claim 1 with a catalyst compound having a group 3 through group 12 metal atom or lanthanide atom.
In terms of claim 21, see claim 24 of the `499 publication.
In terms of claim 22, see claim 25 of the `499 publication.
In terms of claim 23 wherein the catalyst compound is
PNG
media_image3.png
378
214
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, the `499 publication (claim 28) teaches the catalyst compound is the compound of formula I
PNG
media_image4.png
184
384
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, which reads on claim 23.
In terms of claim 24, see claims 27 of the `499 publication.
In terms of claim 25, Example 8 of the `499 publication [0198] discloses a polymerization experimental comprising (e) contacting the catalyst system SMAO-ES70-875C with one or more monomers of ethylene flow in a gas phase fluidized bed, solution phase, and/or a slurry phase, to produce a polymer product: optionally wherein the polymer product is a copolymer monomer of ethylene.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-4, 10-13, 16, and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-25 of U.S. Patent No. 11,021,552 (“the `552 patent”) to Harlan et al.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Applicant’s claims 1-4, 10-13, 16, and 19 and claims 1-25 of the `552 patent are all drawn to a process for prepare a supported alumoxane, comprising: (a) forming a solution by, in an aliphatic hydrocarbon fluid, combining at least one hydrocarbyl aluminum with at least one non-hydrolytic oxygen-containing compound and a support material; (b) distilling the solution at a pressure of greater than about 0.5 atm to form a supported alumoxane precursor, wherein the precursor comprises from about 0 wt % to about 50 wt % of the aliphatic hydrocarbon fluid based on the total weight of the precursor; and (c) heating the precursor to a temperature greater than the boiling point of the aliphatic hydrocarbon fluid and less than about 160 degrees Celsius to form a supported alumoxane. In terms of step (b), distilling the solution at a pressure of greater than 0.5 atm to form a supported alumoxane precursor would be obvious over the step 2) separating excess of the aliphatic solvent, and forming an alumoxane precursor of the `552 patent.
Claim Objection
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The phrase “A process to prepare a supported alumoxane” is suggested to be replaced with “A process for preparing a supported alumoxane”. However, this objection is formality issue, and will be withdrawn if Applicant does not want to make the suggested change.
Conclusions
Claims 1-4, 10-13, 16, and 19-25 are rejected.
Claim 1 is objected to.
Claims 5-8 are withdrawn.
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.
Telephone Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yong L. Chu, whose telephone number is (571)272-5759. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber R. Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Status 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).
/YONG L CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights