DETAILED ACTION
This communication responds to the application and amended claim set filed June 30, 2023. Claims 1-19 and 21 are currently pending.
Claims 1-19 and 21 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 .
Priority
This application is the national stage entry of PCT/US2022/070113, filed January 10, 2022, which claims priority to US 63/200,051, filed February 11, 2021.
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 (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 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 1-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silva et al. (US 2020/0071436).
Regarding claims 1-5, 19, and 21, Silva teaches a gas phase polymerization process in which a catalyst feed, and olefin, and a carrier gas such as nitrogen are fed into the reactor. (Fig. 1; paras. [0142], [0147], [0155], and [0156].) The catalyst component feed comprises a diluent, at least one support, at least one activator, and the catalyst component. (para. [0421].)
The difference between Silva and the present claims is that Silva does not explicitly state the amount of catalyst relative to the carrier liquid/diluent. However, differences in concentration 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 relative amounts of catalyst component and carrier liquid/diluent to reach a desired polymerization rate.
Regarding claims 6, 9, and 10, the amount of polymer sheeting in the reactor in the process of Silva should fall within the claimed range, given the substantially similar process. Further, Silva teaches that a condensing agent such as isopentane may be added to the reactor either directly or via the feed line. (para. [0154].) Given that condensing agents reduce reactor fouling, any reactor sheeting would be lowered even further.
Regarding claim 7, the catalyst feed diluent may comprise mineral oil and a wax. (para. [0142].)
Regarding claim 8, the diluent may contain 5 wt.% or more of wax. (para. [0143].)
Regarding claim 11, as discussed above, Silva teaches that the catalyst feed comprises a mineral oil and wax diluent, and may include a condensing agent. Silva also teaches that the diluent may contain 5 wt.% or more of wax, but is silent as to the relative amounts of the diluent components. However, differences in concentration 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 relative amounts of mineral oil, wax, and condensing agent to minimize fouling and reduce solids settling.
Regarding claim 12, Silva teaches that the catalyst feed is formed from a trim catalyst feed and a catalyst feed. (Fig. 1; para. [0142].)
Regarding claim 13, as noted above, Silva teaches a two-source catalyst feed. The first is a slurry catalyst mixture comprising mineral oil and optional wax diluents, two different catalyst compounds, at least one support, and at least one activator. (para. [0421].) A catalyst solution feed comprises a solvent a catalyst compound. (para. [0147]. See also Fig. 1.) Each catalyst – the two in the slurry mixture and the one in the solution mixture – is preferably a metallocene. (See Exs., para. [0298]-[0299].)
Regarding claim 14, Silva teaches that the preferred support is silica and the preferred activator is MAO. (Exs., para. [0298].)
Regarding claim 15, Silva teaches that the preferred mixed catalyst components include the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
131
403
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(para. [0299].)
Regarding claims 16-18, Silva teaches the co-polymerization of ethylene and hexene under the following reactor conditions:
PNG
media_image2.png
479
418
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Table 1.) To the extent these conditions are outside the conditions recited in the present claims, 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 reaction conditions to reach, e.g., a desired reaction rate.
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