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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/2/2026 has been entered.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al. (KR-20200075963-A), in view of Joung et al. (KR-101711788-B1).
Regarding claims 1, 3 and 16
Jeong discloses a catalyst for olefin polymerization comprising a first transition metal compound A-4 (i.e., corresponds to formula 2 where n and o are 0, M is zirconium, and X is halogen), a second transition metal compound B-3 (i.e., corresponds to formula 3 where R5 is n-butyl, R6 is t-butyl, R7 and R8 are methyl, M is Zr, X is Cl, and Q is carbon), and a cocatalyst (claims 1, 3 and 5; and Table1, example 13).
Although Jeong does not disclose the first transition metal compound, Jeong does disclose the other limitations of the claim. However, Joung discloses a hybrid catalyst for olefin polymerization comprising indenyl (cyclopentadienyl) ZrCl2 (i.e., reading on formula 2-1 of claim 2) and a second transition metal compound of Me2Si(2-methyl-4-phenyl indenyl)2ZrCl2 (i.e., reading on compound formula 1 when l and m are 1, M is zirconium, X is halogen, Q is silicon, R1 is phenyl, and R2, R7 and R8 are methyl; reading on formula 1-1 of claim 2)(claims 1 and 3; paras 0114, 0157 and 0158; and Table 1,example 1). Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add to the teachings of Jeong by using a third transition metal compound (reading on formula 1), because combining two or more materials disclosed by the prior art for the same purpose to form a third material that is to be used for the same purpose has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Kerkhoven, 205 U.S.P.Q. 1069.
As to the amounts of the catalyst used without more teaching it would have been prima facie obvious to use the three transition metal compounds in equal amounts. In doing such the ratio of the first and second transition metal would be 50:50, and the amount of the third transition metal compound would be 33 mol %
The gel index is a property of the composition and since Jeong and Juong make obvious the claimed catalyst, and Jeong discloses identical methods and monomers, the formed polymer would be expected to also meet these property limitations. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § § 2112- 2112.02. Further, it is noted that the gel properties would be dependent upon the method used to form a polymer with the catalyst, and these features are not claimed.
Regarding claim 2
Although Jeong does not disclose the compound of formula 3-1 where R7 and R8 are both phenyl, Jeong does disclose specific compounds where both R7 and R8 are methyl and a compound where R7 is methyl and R8 is phenyl (paras 0032 and 0034). However, Jeong also discloses general formula B where the R6 and R7 (corresponding to claimed R7 and R8) can be unsubstituted C6 aryls (paras 0012-0020), making the compound using two phenyl groups in the R7 and R8 position obvious.
Regarding claims 4-7
Jeong discloses that the cocatalyst may be a compound represented by formula 4 which can be methylaluminoxane; a compound represented by formula 5 which can be trimethylaluminum; and/or a compound represented by formula 6 which can be triethylammonium tetraphenylboron (paras 0039-0048).
Regarding claim 8
Jeong discloses a carrier supporting the cocatalyst (claims 9 and 10).
Regarding claim 9
Jeong discloses that silica, alumina, or magnesia may be used as the carrier (claim 12).
Regarding claim 10
Jeong discloses that the amount of first and second transition metal compounds supported on the carrier is 0.001-1 mmole based on 1 g of carrier, and the amount of co-catalyst is 2-15 mmole based on 1 g of carrier (claim 11).
Regarding claim 11
Jeong discloses a method for preparing an olefin-based polymer in which olefin based monomers are polymerized in the presence of a catalyst for olefin polymerization (para 0133).
Regarding claim 12
Jeong discloses that the olefin based polymer is a copolymer of an olefin based monomer and a comonomer (claim 19 and para 0134).
Regarding claim 13
Jeong discloses that the olefin monomer is ethylene and the olefin based comonomer is one or more selected from the group consisting of propylene, 1-butene,1-pentene, 4-methyl-1-pentene, 1-hexene and the like (claim 20), and that the polymer is a linear low-density polyethylene (abstract).
Regarding claim 15
Jeong discloses that the polymer may be prepared by slurry polymerization (para 0140).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the prior art fairly teaches or suggest a catalyst as claimed having the third transition metal present in an amount from 10 to 30mol %, in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicants argue against the prior art rejections.
Applicants argue that the amended claims differentiate from the prior art. This is not persuasive as the limitations are to a polymer formed from the catalyst and would be dependent upon the conditions used to form the polymer and not dependent solely upon the catalyst. Further, applicants have not shown that the catalyst of the references would not also be capable of forming such a polymer. Applicants argue that when the third transition metal is not present, or is present in amounts lower than claimed excessive gel is formed. While this may be true it is not persuasive as the rejection based on the references would not have had the third catalyst present in such low amounts, and as such the closest prior art has not been compared.
Applicants argue that the examiner has used improper hindsight analysis. This is not persuasive as it is obvious to combine two or mo0re components used for the same purpose into a third composition used for the same purpose. When such is done there has to be some mixing ratio and the most obvious is equal amounts.
The remaining arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the same reason given above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES E MCDONOUGH whose telephone number is (571)272-6398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-10.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 5712721177. 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.
JAMES E. MCDONOUGH
Examiner
Art Unit 1734
/JAMES E MCDONOUGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights