DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Although claim construction utilizing the term “preferably” is no longer considered egregious, rewriting the limitations of preferable embodiments of viscosity average molecular weight (lines 4 and 5) as separate dependent claims is recommended.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: A process claim needs to contain at least one action verb. In line 6, replace “which is characterized in that” with “comprising subjecting” and in line 7, delete “subjected to”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 7, please replace “co-monomer” with “comonomer”.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 7, please replace “the slurry” with “a slurry”.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 9, please replace “the main” with “a main”.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 10, please replace “the cocatalyst” with “a cocatalyst”.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 12, please replace “as the” with “as a”.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, please replace “which is characterized in that” with “wherein”.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, delete “tank”.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 3, please replace “the polymerization” with “a polymerization”.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Although claim construction utilizing the term “preferably” is no longer considered egregious, rewriting the limitations of preferable embodiment of polymerization temperature (line 4) as a separate dependent claim is recommended.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 5, please replace “the polymerization” with “a polymerization”.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Although claim construction utilizing the term “preferably” is no longer considered egregious, rewriting the limitations of preferable embodiment of polymerization pressure (line 6) as a separate dependent claim is recommended.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 6, please replace “and the” with “and a”.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Although claim construction utilizing the term “preferably” is no longer considered egregious, rewriting the limitation of preferable embodiment of polymerization activity (page 4, line 1) as a separate dependent claim is recommended.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 4, line 2, please replace “the total” with “a total”.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 4, line 3, please replace “the proportion” with “a proportion”.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Although claim construction utilizing the term “preferably” is no longer considered egregious, rewriting the limitation of preferable embodiment of proportion of comonomer (page 4, line 4) as a separate dependent claim is recommended.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 4, line 5, please replace “into the” with “into a”.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, please replace “which is characterized in that” with “wherein”.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 3, please replace “neopentane, and” with “neopentane, or”.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 5, please replace “and cyclopentane” with “or cyclopentane”.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Although claim construction utilizing the term “preferably” is no longer considered egregious, rewriting the limitation of preferable embodiment of mixed alkane solvent (line 5) as a separate dependent claim is recommended.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 9, please replace “and a” with “or a”.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, please replace “which is characterized in that” with “wherein”.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 3, please replace “said comonomer” with “the at least one comonomer”.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 3, please replace “can be” with “may be”.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 4, please replace “and 1-octene” with “or 1-octene”.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Although claim construction utilizing the term “preferably” is no longer considered egregious, rewriting the limitation of preferable embodiment of comonomer (line 4) as a separate dependent claim is recommended.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 5, please replace “and 1-hexene” with “or 1-hexene”.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, please replace “which is characterized in that” with “wherein”.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 4, please replace “and n-butyl” with “or n-butyl”.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Although claim construction utilizing the term “preferably” is no longer considered egregious, rewriting the limitation of preferable embodiment of aluminoxane (line 5) as a separate dependent claim is recommended.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 6, please replace “and iso-butyl” with “or iso-butyl”.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 7, please replace “one ore more” with “one or more”.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 7, please replace “fromtrimethyl” with “or trimethyl”.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 10, please replace “and dimethyl” with “or dimethyl”.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Although claim construction utilizing the term “preferably” is no longer considered egregious, rewriting the limitation of preferable embodiment of alkyl aluminum (line 10) as a separate dependent claim is recommended.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 12, please replace “and tri-iso-butyl” with “or tri-iso-butyl”.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Although claim construction utilizing the term “most preferably” is no longer considered egregious, rewriting the limitation of preferable embodiment of alkyl aluminum (line 12) as a separate dependent claim is recommended.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 13, please replace “and tri-iso-butyl” with “or tri-iso-butyl”.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 19, please replace “monochlorodiisohexylaluminum, and” with “monochlorodiisohexylaluminum, or”.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Although claim construction utilizing the term “preferably” is no longer considered egregious, rewriting the limitation of preferable embodiment of haloalkyl aluminum (line 20) as a separate dependent claim is recommended.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 23, please replace “and dichloro-” with “or dichloro-”.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Although claim construction utilizing the term “further preferably” is no longer considered egregious, rewriting the limitation of preferable embodiment of haloalkyl aluminum (line 24) as a separate dependent claim is recommended.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 25, please replace “and monochlorodi-” with “or monochlorodi-”.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Although claim construction utilizing the term “most preferably” is no longer considered egregious, rewriting the limitation of preferable embodiment of haloalkyl aluminum (page 6, line 1) as a separate dependent claim is recommended.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 25, please replace “and dichloroethylaluminum” with “or dichloroethylaluminum”.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, please replace “which is characterized in that” with “wherein”.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, please replace “which is characterized in that” with “wherein”.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 4, please replace “chemical structural formulae” with “chemical formula”.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Definitions of structural elements A, B, D, G, E, M, X, R1, R2, R3, m n, and q, as well as definitions of the three types of bonds (see page 10, lines 4-6), need to be written immediately after the chemical formula presented below line 4.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Although claim construction utilizing the term “preferably” is no longer considered egregious, rewriting the limitation of preferable embodiment of non-metallocene complex (line 5) as a separate dependent claim is recommended. If the separate dependent claim depends from claim 6, one may write “A, B, D, G, E, M, X, R1, R2, R3, m n, and q are defined as before” and include a definition for structural element F. If the separate dependent claim depends from the independent claim, then write all definitions for all structural elements A, B, D, G, E, F, M, X, R1, R2, R3, m n, and q.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 5, please replace “compounds (A) and (B)” with “compound (A) or compound (B)”.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 7, line 1, delete “and” which appears below the structure on the top left of page.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Although claim construction utilizing the term “more preferably” is no longer considered egregious, rewriting the limitation of preferable embodiment of non-metallocene complex (page 7, line 2) as a separate dependent claim is recommended. If the separate dependent claim depends from claim 6, one may write “A, B, D, G, E, M, X, R1, R2, R3, m n, and q are defined as before” and include definitions for remaining structural elements. If the separate dependent claim depends from the independent claim, then write all definitions for structural elements A, B, D, G, E, F, M, X, R1, R2, R3, m n, and q, as well as remaining structural elements.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 7, line 2, please replace “(A-4) and” with “(A-4) or”.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 8, delete “and” which appears between structures (B-3) and (B-4).
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Although claim construction utilizing the term “preferably” and “more preferably” is no longer considered egregious, rewriting the limitations of preferable embodiments of M (page 8, line 6) as separate dependent claims is recommended.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 8, lines 9 and 10, please replace “hydrocabon” with “hydrocarbon” (two occurrences).
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 9, line 1, please replace “and a stannum” with “or a stannum”.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 9, line 2, please replace “Xs can be” with “Xs may be”.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 9, line 5, A cannot be structural fragment -N(O)R25R26 because the quaternary nitrogen atom bears a positive formal charge without a charge compensating anion.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 9, line 8, please replace “hydrocabon” with “hydrocarbon”.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 9, line 11, please replace “hydrocabon” with “hydrocarbon”.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 9, line 5, please replace “sulfinyl and” with “sulfinyl or”.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 9, line 8, please replace “and a C1-C30” with “or a C1-C30”.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 9, line 11, please replace “and sulfinyl” with “or sulfinyl”.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 9, line 15, please replace “and cyano” with “or cyano”.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 9, line 17, please replace “and a phosphorus” with “or a phosphorus”.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 9, lines 19 and 20, please replace “hydrocabon” with “hydrocarbon” (two occurrences).
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 9, line 20, please replace “and an inert” with “or an inert”.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 9, line 22, please replace “selenium-containing group and” with “selenium-containing group or”.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 10, line 3, please replace “and cyano” with “or cyano”.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 10, line 8, please replace “hydrocabon” with “hydrocarbon” (two occurrences).
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 10, line 8, please replace “and an inert” with “or an inert”.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 10, line 9, groups R25 and R26 cannot exist (see paragraph 63, supra), and written description of groups R32 to R36 cannot be located.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 10, line 10, please replace “hydrocabon” with “hydrocarbon” (two occurrences).
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 10, line 10, please replace “and a substituted” with “or a substituted”.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 10, line 11, please replace “can be identical” with “may be identical”.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Although claim construction utilizing the term “preferably” and “more preferably” is no longer considered egregious, rewriting the limitation of preferable embodiment of ring (page 10, line 13) as a separate dependent claim is recommended.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 10, line 17, please replace “and nitro” with “or nitro”.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 10, line 19, please replace “hydrocabon” with “hydrocarbon” (two occurrences).
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 10, line 21, please replace “and a phosphorus” with “or a phosphorus”.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 10, line 23, please replace “can serve” with “may serve”.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 11, line 2, please replace “and C1-C30” with “or C1-C30”.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 10, line 2, the term “as the substituent” is superfluous and may be deleted.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Although claim construction utilizing the term “further preferably” is no longer considered egregious, rewriting the limitation of preferable embodiment of non-metallocene complex (page 11, line 4) as a separate dependent claim is recommended.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 11, delete “and” which appears between the bottom two structures.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Although claim construction utilizing the term “most preferably” is no longer considered egregious, rewriting the limitation of preferable embodiment of non-metallocene complex (page 11, line 7) as a separate dependent claim is recommended.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 12, delete “and” which appears between the two structures.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: In lines 1 and 2, please replace “which is characterized in that” with “wherein”.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: In lines 3, 5, 7, 10, 12, 13, and 15, please replace “and” with “or”. The format in originally filed claim is acceptable.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 3, it is not clear whether claim intends to further define “halogen atom”, as recited in claim 7, page 8, line 9 or “halogen”, as recited in claim 7, page 10, line 14, or “halogen atoms”, as recited in claim 7, page 11, line 2.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 5, the nitrogen-containing group cannot be structural fragment -N(O)R25R26 because the quaternary nitrogen atom bears a positive formal charge without a charge compensating anion.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 8, please replace “and -T-OR34” with “or -T-OR34”.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 13, please replace “C1-C30” with “C1-C30”.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: In lines 13 and 14, please replace “hydrocabon” with “hydrocarbon” (two occurrences).
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 15, substituents R32 to R38 need to be defined and written prior to definition of R37; see also paragraph 77.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 15, please replace “R37” with “R37”.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: In lines 15, 16, and 17, please replace “hydrocabon” with “hydrocarbon” (three occurrences).
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 13, lines 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 12, and 15, please replace “and” with “or”. The format in originally filed claim is acceptable.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 13, lines 15 and 16, please replace “hydrocabon” with “hydrocarbon” (two occurrences).
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 4, please replace “alkyl halide, and” with “alkyl halide, or”.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Although claim construction utilizing the term “preferably” and “most preferably” is no longer considered egregious, rewriting the limitation of preferable embodiments of Group IVB metal compound (line 5 and page 14, line 2) as separate dependent claims is recommended.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 14, line 1, please replace “and HfBr4” with “or HfBr4”.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 14, line 2, please replace “and ZrCl4” with “or ZrCl4”.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: In lines 1 and 2, please replace “which is characterized in that” with “wherein”.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Although claim construction utilizing the term “preferably” and “more preferably” is no longer considered egregious, rewriting the limitation of preferable embodiments of viscosity average molecular weight (lines 4 and 5) as separate dependent claims is recommended.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Although claim construction utilizing the term “preferably” is no longer considered egregious, rewriting the limitation of preferable embodiment of metal element content (line 7) as a separate dependent claim is recommended.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 7, please insert “ultra-high molecular weight”prior to “polyethylene”.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 8, please replace “and Condition (2)” with “or Condition (2)”.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Although claim construction utilizing the term “preferably” is no longer considered egregious, rewriting the limitation of preferable embodiment of tensile elasticity modulus (line 9) and Young’s modulus (line 11) as a separate dependent claim is recommended.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, please replace “which is characterized in that” with “wherein”.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, please insert “ultra-high molecular weight” prior to “polyethylene”.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Although claim construction utilizing the term “preferably” and “more preferably” is no longer considered egregious, rewriting the limitation of preferable embodiments of bulk density (lines 3 and 4) as separate dependent claims is recommended.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Although claim construction utilizing the term “preferably” and “further preferably” is no longer considered egregious, rewriting the limitation of preferable embodiments of true density (lines 6 and 7) as separate dependent claims is recommended.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Although claim construction utilizing the term “preferably” is no longer considered egregious, rewriting the limitation of preferable embodiment of melting point (line 8) and crystallinity (page 15, line 2) as a separate dependent claim is recommended.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, please replace “which is characterized in that” with “wherein”.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, please insert “ultra-high molecular weight” prior to “polyethylene”.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: Although claim construction utilizing the term “preferably” is no longer considered egregious, rewriting the limitation of preferable embodiments of metal and chloride contents (lines 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10) as separate dependent claims is recommended.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, please replace “which is characterized in that” with “wherein”.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 3, please insert “ultra-high molecular weight” prior to “polyethylene” (two occurrences).
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, please replace “the comonomer” with “a comonomer”.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 6, please replace “can be” with “may be”.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 7, please replace “and 1-octene” with “or 1-octene” and replace “and 1-hexene” with “or 1-hexene”.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, please insert “ultra-high molecular weight” prior to “polyethylene”.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: Although claim construction utilizing the term “preferably” is no longer considered egregious, rewriting the limitation of preferable embodiments of mechanical properties (page 16, lines 1, 3, 5, and 7) as separate dependent claims is recommended.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, please replace “which is characterized in that” with “wherein”.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 3, please insert “ultra-high molecular weight” prior to “polyethylene”.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: Although claim construction utilizing the term “preferably” is no longer considered egregious, rewriting the limitation of preferable embodiment of ash content (line 3) as a separate dependent claim is recommended.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Li et al. (CN 102039184).
Li et al. teaches a supported non-metallocene catalyst comprising a porous silica support, a titanium component (TiCl4), and a transition metal complex having the structure shown below (paragraph [0299]).
PNG
media_image1.png
144
208
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The catalyst is used to prepare ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) in a slurry polymerization process in absence of hydrogen with hexane solvent and at a polymerization pressure of 0.5 MPa and polymerization temperature of 70 ºC (paragraph [0416]). The supported non-metallocene catalyst also contains a triethylaluminum or methylaluminoxane cocatalyst (Table 2). An UHMWPE having a viscosity average molecular weight of 420 × 104 g/mole and bulk density of 0.36 g/cm3 is prepared when triethylaluminum is used as cocatalyst. An UHMWPE having a viscosity average molecular weight of 475 × 104 g/mole and bulk density of 0.38 g/cm3 is prepared when methylaluminoxane is used as cocatalyst. While hexane (bp 69 ºC) is used as solvent in working examples, inventors teach use of other alkane solvents such as pentane (bp 36 º) for carrying out polymerization. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use pentane as solvent where hexane is not available, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected to carry out polymerization with a high degree of success. The skilled artisan also would have expected to produce UHMWPE of comparable molecular weight and bulk density as that prepared in hexane solvent.
Claims 10-15 are drawn to an ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene having a viscosity average molecular weight ranging from 150 × 104 g/mole to 1000 × 104 g/mole and a metal element content ranging from 0 ppm to 50 ppm, wherein the ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene satisfies at least one of condition (1) or condition (2): condition (1), tensile elasticity modulus is greater than 250 MPa, condition (2), Young’s modulus is greater than 300 MPa.
Claims are not in condition for allowance.
Subject of claims 10-15 is patentably distinct over Li et al. (CN 102039184). Reference does not disclose an ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene having claimed metal element content and at least one of recited mechanical properties. The ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene of prior art is prepared in hexane solvent. Present inventors have shown in comparative examples that such ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene has a metal element content that exceeds that set forth in instant claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rip A. Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-1104. The examiner can be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Jones, can be reached at (571)270-7733. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RIP A LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762 February 21, 2026