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 .
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-9 and 11-13 in the reply filed on August 18, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 10 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on August 18, 2026.
Claims 1-9 and 11-13 are currently pending.
Claim Analysis
Summary of Claim 1:
A method of preparing a diene-based rubber polymer, comprising:
initiating polymerization of a monomer in the presence of a coordination metal catalyst;
and adding a radical initiator in response to a polymerization conversion rate being 20 to 75% and performing the polymerization of the monomer,
wherein the monomer is a diene-based monomer or the monomer includes the diene- based monomer and an aromatic vinyl-based monomer.
Claim Interpretation
The recitation of “a polymerization conversion rate” is interpreted as [(Total weight of monomers added until polymerization is terminated) - (Total weight of unreacted monomers when polymerization conversion rate is measured)] / (Total weight of monomers added until
polymerization is terminated) x 100 in view of the instant specification, page 5, line 8-11.
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 1-3, 6-9, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCauley et al. (US 20190276570 as listed on IDS dated September 12, 2023) in view of Han et al. (US 20190016841 as listed on IDS dated September 12, 2023).
Regarding claim 1 and 2, McCauley et al. disclose a method of polymerizing a conjugated diene monomer in the presence of a coordination catalyst (claim 16), thereby reading on the first step of initiating polymerization of a monomer in the presence of a coordination catalyst and wherein the monomer is a diene-based monomer as recited in instant claim 1.
McCauley et al. is silent on adding a radical initiator in response to a polymerization conversion rate being 20 to 75% and performing the polymerization of the monomer as recited in the instant claim 1 and 2.
Han et al. teach a method of preparing a resin comprising polymerizing a conjugated diene mononomer and a polymerization initiator (claim 1). Han et al. further teach the polymerization initiator is added at the initial reaction stage and at a polymerization conversion rate of 25 to 55% [0050], thereby reading on the second step of the instant claim and lying within the claimed range of the polymerization conversion rate of instant claim 1 and 2. Han et al. offer the motivation that following this step prevents excessive reaction of monomers and a large diameter of rubber latex having a uniform size may be prepared [0050]. McCauley et al. is also concerned with a diene based polymer and controlling the polymerization reaction [0003-0004]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a radical initiator as taught by Han et al. with the method of McCauley et al. with reasonable expectation that the polymerization can be controlled.
Regarding claim 3, McCauley et al. disclose the amount of catalyst is about 0.001 to about 1 mmol of catalyst per 100 g of monomer (claim 18).
McCauley et al. do not disclose the amount of metal catalyst in parts by weight as recited in the instant claim.
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 catalysts to produce a diene-based rubber polymer with the desired molecular weight and structure.
Regarding claim 6, McCauley et al. is silent on the amount of radical initiator as recited in the instant claim.
Han et al. teach the amount of polymerization initiator is 0.01 to 6 parts by weight of with respect to 100 parts by weight of conjugated diene based monomer (claim 1), thereby overlapping with the claimed range. Han et al. offer the motivation that following this step prevents excessive reaction of monomers and a large diameter of rubber latex having a uniform size may be prepared [0047-0048]. McCauley et al. is also concerned with a diene based polymer and controlling the polymerization reaction [0003-0004]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a radical initiator as taught by Han et al. with the method of McCauley et al. with reasonable expectation that the polymerization can be controlled.
Regarding claim 7 and 12, McCauley et al. is silent on the radical initiator as recited in the instant claim.
Han et al. teach the radical initiator is potassium persulfate [0047], thereby reading on instant claim 7 and 12. Han et al. offer the motivation that following this step prevents excessive reaction of monomers and a large diameter of rubber latex having a uniform size may be prepared [0047-0048]. McCauley et al. is also concerned with a diene based polymer and controlling the polymerization reaction [0003-0004]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a radical initiator as taught by Han et al. with the method of McCauley et al. with reasonable expectation that the polymerization can be controlled.
Regarding claim 8, McCauley et al. teaches the polymerization is terminated by a terminating agent [0036].
McCauley is silent on terminating polymerization in response to polymerization conversion rate being 90% or more.
Han et al. teach the polymerization is terminated when a polymerization conversion rate is 90 to 99% (claim 1), thereby lying within the claimed range. Han et al. offer the motivation that within the range, a large-diameter rubber latex having a high polymerization degree and uniform particle distribution may be prepared [0063-0064]. McCauley et al. is also concerned with the polymerization degree of the diene-based rubber polymer [0057]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a radical initiator as taught by Han et al. with the method of McCauley et al. with reasonable expectation that the polymerization degree of the diene-based rubber polymer can be controlled.
Regarding claim 9, McCauley et al. is silent on if the polymerization is emulsion polymerization as recited in the instant claim.
Han et al. teaches the diene rubber is emulsion polymerized (claim 1, [0004-0005]), thereby reading on the instant claim. Han et al. offer the motivation that the stability of polymerization is improved and the amount of gas generation (TVOC) is reduced [0062]. McCauley et al. is also interested in removing volatiles substances [0054]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to polymerize the diene-based rubber of McCauley et al. using emulsion polymerization as taught by Han et al. with reasonable expectation that the amount of volatiles substances can be reduced.
Regarding claim 11, McCauley et al. in view of Han et al. disclose preparing the diene-based rubber polymer as rejected in the rejection for claim 1 above.
McCauley et al. is silent on the step of graft-polymerizing the aromatic vinyl-based monomer and a vinyl cyanide-based monomer as recited in the instant claim.
Han et al. teach a step of graft polymerizing a diene rubber, aromatic vinyl monomer, and vinyl cyan monomer (claim 1), thereby reading on the instant claim. Han et al. offer the motivation that within this range the diene-based rubber polymer has superior mechanical properties and satisfactory property balance [0070]. McCauley et al. is also concerned with the performance properties of the diene-based rubber polymer [0034]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to graft polymerize the diene rubber of McCauley et al. with an aromatic vinyl monomer, and vinyl cyan monomer as taught by Han et al. with reasonable expectation that the mechanical properties of the diene-based rubber polymer would improve.
Regarding claim 13, McClauley et al. teach the conjugated diene monomer is 1,3-butadiene (claim 28), thereby reading on the instant claim.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCauley et al. (US 20190276570 as listed on IDS dated September 12, 2023) in view of Han et al. (US 20190016841 as listed on IDS dated September 12, 2023) in further view of Perez et al. (ES 2200698).
The examiner refers to the English translation of Perez et al. provided in this Office Action. The method of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, McCauley et al. teach the coordination polymerizations are carried out using transition metal catalysts [0037].
McCauley et al. is silent on the coordination metal catalyst comprises nickel, cobalt or titanium and the claimed coordination metal catalyst, as recited in instant claim 4 and 5 respectively.
Perez et al. teach a catalyst for polymerization of dienes (claim 1). Perez et al. teach in Example 1 a catalyst shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
389
975
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thereby reading on a catalyst comprises nickel as recited in instant claim 4, and the coordination metal catalyst [(η3-C3H5)Ni(η6-BHT)][B(3,5-(CF3)2C6H3)4] and BHT is 3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxytoluene as recited in instant claim 5. Perez et al. offer the motivation that the catalyst has high stereoselectivity and catalytic activity and tolerance to the presence of polar substances (abstract). McCauley et al. is also concerned with diene polymerization and transition metal catalysts [0037]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the catalyst of Perez et al. to the method of McCauley et al. in view of Han et al. with reasonable expectation that the activity of the catalyst would improve.
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
/JOSEPH S DEL SOLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights