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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-14, in the reply filed on 1 June 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 15 and 16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1 June 2026.
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 1-14 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.
In the second to last line of claim 1, the phrases “a polymer” are unclear because they do not refer specifically to a polymer previously recited. Therefore, it is unclear to what polymer this refers to.
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.
Claim(s) 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2020/0231717 (“Kim”).
As to claims 1 and 2, Kim teaches an olefin based polymer (abstract). Example 1-1 (table 5) discloses an example having density of 914.5 kg/cm3, which is within the recited range of claims 1 and 2 when rounded to the same digits as recited, a melt index at 2.16 kg of 0.9 g/10 min, within the range of claims 1 and 2, and a polydispersity index of 4.34, which is within the range recited by claims 1 and 2. Referring to Fig. 2, showing TREF of Example 1-1, is estimated to disclose C65-C45 of approximately 36 wt %, within the range of claim 1.
As to claim 3, it is noted that the limitation of claim 3 is a product by process limitation, for which patentability is determined by the end product. See MPEP 2113. In this case, the end product, as discussed with respect to claim 1 is the same olefin polymer. Since the catalyst taught by Kim is heterogeneous, the end product is presumed to be identical.
In addition, Kim teaches example 1-1 uses a first catalyst of (n-PrCp)2HfCl2, and a second compound of compound A. The compound (n-PrCp)2HfCl2 meets Chemical Formula I where M1 is Hf, X is Cl, R1 is n-propyl, R2-R5 are hydrogen. Compound A is (pentamethylcyclopentadienyl)(indenyl)zirconium dichloride (paras. 0084, 0085; note that while the compound listing of para. 0085 doesn’t show the indenyl group, it is clear that the indenyl moiety is present in compound A from the synthesis and the general formula 2; see also para. 0046 listing the compound correctly). This second compound meets Chemical Formula 3 where M2 is Zr which is different from M1, X is Cl, R1-R5 are methyl, R6 and R7 are connected one another to form a C6 aromatic ring, and R8-R10 are hydrogen.
As to claims 4 and 5, as discussed with respect to claim 3, M1 and M2 are Zr and Hf, and X is halogen. While Kim does not teach that R1-R10 are all the recited species, it is noted that the limitation of claims 4 and 5 are a product by process limitation, for which patentability is determined by the end product. See MPEP 2113. In this case, the end product, as discussed with respect to claim 1 is the same olefin polymer. Since the catalyst taught by Kim is heterogeneous, the end product is presumed to be identical to one produced using the recited catalyst.
As to claim 6, Kim does not teach the two transition metal compounds as recited; however, it is noted that the limitation of claim 6 is a product by process limitation, for which patentability is determined by the end product. See MPEP 2113. In this case, the end product, as discussed with respect to claim 1 is the same olefin polymer. Since the catalyst taught by Kim is heterogeneous, the end product is presumed to be identical to one produced using the recited catalyst.
As to claim 7, it is noted that the limitation of claim 3 is a product by process limitation, for which patentability is determined by the end product. See MPEP 2113. In this case, the end product, as discussed with respect to claim 1 is the same olefin polymer. Since the catalyst taught by Kim is heterogeneous, the end product is presumed to be identical. In addition, Kim teaches the use of 53 mg of the first compound, and 11.8 mg of the second compound, such that the ratio of these two compounds is in the recited range.
As to claim 8, it is noted that the limitation of claim 3 is a product by process limitation, for which patentability is determined by the end product. See MPEP 2113. In this case, the end product, as discussed with respect to claim 1 is the same olefin polymer. Since the catalyst taught by Kim is heterogeneous, the end product is presumed to be identical.
Furthermore, Example 1 includes methylaluminoxane (MAO),which has the general formula 4 (para. 0047).
As to claims 9 and 10, it is noted that the limitation of claim 3 is a product by process limitation, for which patentability is determined by the end product. See MPEP 2113. In this case, the end product, as discussed with respect to claim 1 is the same olefin polymer. Since the catalyst taught by Kim is heterogeneous, the end product is presumed to be identical.
Furthermore, Kim teaches forming the catalyst on a silica carrier (para. 0096).
As to claim 11, it is noted that the limitation of claim 3 is a product by process limitation, for which patentability is determined by the end product. See MPEP 2113. In this case, the end product, as discussed with respect to claim 1 is the same olefin polymer. Since the catalyst taught by Kim is heterogeneous, the end product is presumed to be identical.
In addition, Kim teaches the aluminum (cocatalyst) is present in 10 to 16.5 wt % (para. 0096), which is calculated as providing approximately 3.7 to 6.1 mmol per g of carrier. Kim further reaches the molar ratio of aluminum to metal of 230 to 650, which suggests approximately .006 to 0.027 mmol of transition metal catalyst per 1 of carrier (para. 0096).
As to claims 12-14, Kim teaches the polymer of Example 1-1 is a copolymer of ethylene and 1-hexene as required by claims 12 and 13. Moreover, Kim teaches the invention is an improvement over conventional mLLDPE, and thus can be considered an LLDPE, especially given that it has the same properties as recited.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KREGG T BROOKS whose telephone number is (313)446-4888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9 am to 5:30 pm.
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, Arrie Reuther can be reached at (571)270-7026. 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.
/KREGG T BROOKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights