DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 8, 9, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, line 4 recites “at least one first transition meatal compound” The claim should instead read “at least one first transition metal compound”.
Claim 8, lines 1-2 recites “wherein the catalyst”. The claim should instead read “wherein the hybrid catalyst”.
Claim 9, lines 1-2 recites “wherein the catalyst”. The claim should instead read “wherein the hybrid catalyst”.
Claim 16, line 1 recites “The method for preparing an olefin-based monomer”. The claim should instead read “The method for preparing an olefin-based polymer”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the hybrid transition metal compound" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as the total amount of hybrid catalyst support the carrier.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the olefin-based monomer” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Analysis
Summary of Claim 1:
An olefin-based polymer which has
(1) a density of 0.9 to 0.95 g/cm3;
(2) a melt index (I2.16) of 0.1 to 5.0 g/10 min as measured with a load of 2.16 kg at 190° C.;
(3) a ratio between a melt index (I21.6) measured with a load of 21.6 kg and a melt index (I2.16) measured with a load of 2.16 kg at 190° C. (melt flow ratio; MFR) of 20 or more;
(4) a shear thinning index defined by the following Equation 1 of 8 to 15; and
(5) an extrusion load (torque) of 270 Nm or less at an extrusion amount of 5.8 to 5.9 kg/hr, wherein a film prepared therefrom has a drop impact strength (type B) of 700 g or more, based on a thickness of 50 μm:
[Equation 1]
Shear thinning index=η0/η500
wherein η0 and η100 are complex viscosities at frequencies of 0.1 rad/s and 500 rad/s.
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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen et al. (US 20050159300 as listed on IDS dated June 7, 2023).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Jensen et al. disclose in Example 11.1 a polyethylene having (1) a density of 0.917 g/cm3, (2) a melt index (I2.16) of 1.09 g/10 min , and (3) a ratio between melt index (I21.6) and melt index (I2.16) of 19.1. (Table 8B, [0388]), thereby lying within the claimed range of (1) and (2) but lying outside the claimed range of (3) of instant claims 1 and 2.
However, Jensen et al. broadly teaches the polymer has a ratio of 16.5 to 25 (claim 36), thereby overlapping the claimed range of (3) of instant claims 1 and 2. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the range taught by Jensen et al.
Jensen et al. is silent on (4) the shear thinning index and (5) the extrusion load of Example 11.1 as recited in the instant claims.
However, a polymer's characteristics are determined by the process by which the polymer is polymerized, including the catalysts and the reaction conditions. The catalysts used in Example 11.1 are substantially identical to the catalyst used in the instant specification (see Table 8B and instant specification [0145]), and the reaction conditions of Example 11.1 are 176.3°F or 80.2°C, within the range of the polymerization temperature of the instant specification (see Table 8A and instant specification [148]). Thus, the resulting copolymer should likewise be substantially identical to the claimed copolymer. Because the PTO does not have proper means to conduct experiments, the burden of proof is now shifted to Applicant to show otherwise. (See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).)
Regarding claim 3, 4, and 5, Jensen et al. disclose the transition metal compounds used in Example 11.1 shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
288
420
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thereby reading on Chemical Formula 1 wherein M1 is Hf, R1 and R6 is a C4 alkyl, R2-4 are hydrogen, and X is a chlorine (a halogen) and Chemical Formula 2 wherein M2 is zirconium, R1 and R6 is a C4 alkyl, R2-4 are hydrogen, and X is a chlorine (known as a halogen) of instant claim 3, 4, and 5.
Regarding claim 6, Jensen et al. disclose in Example 11.1 a transition metal compound Chemical Formula 2-1 is used as shown above.
However, Jensen et al. do not disclose a first transition metal compound represented by Chemical Formula 1-1 or 1-2.
However, Jensen et al. broadly teaches the transitional metal compound has the following formula:
(X5)(X6)(X7)(X8)Hf, wherein (X5) and (X6) are independently selected from a monosubstituted cyclopentadienyl, a monosubstituted indenyl, a monosubstituted fluorenyl, or a monosubstituted, partially saturated analog thereof; wherein (X5) and (X6) are independently selected from a monosubstituted cyclopentadienyl, a monosubstituted indenyl, a monosubstituted fluorenyl, or a monosubstituted, partially saturated analog thereof; wherein each substituent on (X5) and (X6) is independently selected from a linear or branched aliphatic group, wherein the aliphatic group is unsubstituted or substituted, any one of which having from 1 to about 20 carbon atoms; wherein (X7), (X8), and any substituent on the substituted aliphatic group on (X5) and (X6) are independently selected from an aliphatic group, an aromatic group, a cyclic group, a combination of aliphatic and cyclic groups, an oxygen group, a sulfur group, a nitrogen group, a phosphorus group, an arsenic group, a carbon group, a silicon group, a germanium group, a tin group, a lead group, a boron group, an aluminum group, an inorganic group, an organometallic group, or a substituted derivative thereof, any one of which having from 1 to about 20 carbon atoms; a halide; or hydrogen (claim 2), thereby overlapping with Chemical Formula 1-1 where (X5) and (X6) are monosubstituted cyclopentadienyl with an aliphatic group having 3 carbon atoms and (X7), (X8) is a halide or an aliphatic group having 1 carbon atoms.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a compound as taught by Jensen et al.
Regarding claim 7, Jensen et al. disclose the ratio of the first transition metal compound to the second transition metal compound is 1.01:1, thereby lying within the claimed range (See Table 1 [0359]).
Regarding claim 8, Jensen et al. disclose the cocatalyst is triethylaluminum (TEA) (see Table 8A), thereby reading on Chemical Formula 5, wherein D is aluminum, and Rb, Rc, and Rd are C2 hydrocarbon groups.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Jensen et al. disclose the carrier is a fluorinated silica-alumina [0376]. Jensen et al. disclose the carrier acts as an activator support and activates the metallocene [0190], thereby reading on the instant claims.
Regarding claim 11, Jensen et al. is silent on the amount of carrier present in Example 11.1.
However, Jensen et al. broadly teach the weight ratio of the first and second transition metal compound to the carrier is from 1:1 to 1:1,000,000 [0269] and the weight ratio of carrier to the cocatalyst is from about 1:1 to about 50:1 ]0268]. The equivalent amount of hybrid transition metal compound support on the carrier to the carrier is calculated to be 1.116×10-6 to 1.116 mmol of transition metal compound to 1 g of cocatalyst (calculated using the molecular weight of the first and second transitional metal compound shown in above in the rejection for claim 3, 404.53 g/mol and 491.9 g/mol) and thereby overlapping the claimed range. The equivalent amount of cocatalyst amount to carrier is calculated to be 4.379 to 219.0 mmol to 1 g of carrier (calculated using the molecular weight of triethylaluminum 228.335 g/mol)m and thereby overlapping the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the range broadly taught by Jensen et al.
Regarding claim 12, 13, and 14, Jensen et al. disclose in Example 11.1 the olefin-based monomer is ethylene and the olefin-based comonomer is hexene, thereby reading on the copolymer of claim 12, the olefin-based monomer and olefin-based comonomer of claim 13, and the linear low-density polyethylene of claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, Jensen et al. disclose in Example 11.1 an ethylene monomer polymerized in the presence of a first transition metal compound of Chemical Formula 1 and a second transition metal compound represented by Chemical Formula 2 shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
288
420
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Jensen et al. disclose in Example 11.1 a polyethylene having (1) a density of 0.917 g/cm3, (2) a melt index (I2.16) of 1.09 g/10 min , and (3) a ratio between melt index (I21.6) and melt index (I2.16) of 19.1. (Table 8B, [0388]), thereby lying within the claimed range of (1) and (2) but lying outside the claimed range of (3) of instant claims 1 and 2.
However, Jensen et al. broadly teaches the polymer has a ratio of 16.5 to 25 (claim 36), thereby overlapping the claimed range of (3) of instant claims 1 and 2. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the range taught by Jensen et al.
Jensen et al. is silent on (4) the shear thinning index and (5) the extrusion load of Example 11.1 as recited in the instant claims.
However, a polymer's characteristics are determined by the process by which the polymer is polymerized, including the catalysts and the reaction conditions. The catalysts used in Example 11.1 are substantially identical to the catalyst used in the instant specification (see Table 8B and instant specification [0145]), and the reaction conditions of Example 11.1 are 176.3°F or 80.2°C, within the range of the polymerization temperature of the instant specification (see Table 8A and instant specification [148]). Thus, the resulting copolymer should likewise be substantially identical to the claimed copolymer. Because the PTO does not have proper means to conduct experiments, the burden of proof is now shifted to Applicant to show otherwise. (See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).)
Regarding claim 16, Jensen et al. disclose Example 11.1 undergoes solution polymerization [0363], not gas phase as recited in the instant claim.
However, Jensen et al. teach gas phase polymerization may also be used [0284]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to use gas phase polymerization instead of liquid phase polymerization as taught by Jensen et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREA WU whose telephone number is (571)272-0342. The examiner can normally be reached M F 8 - 5.
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.
/ANDREA WU/Examiner, Art Unit 1763
/CATHERINE S BRANCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763