DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
This action follows a reply filed on 09/10/2026. Per the reply, the Specification and claims 1, 6, 8 and 9 have been amended and claims 2-5 and 11-12 have been cancelled. No new claims have been added. Accordingly, claims 1, 6-10 and 13-14 remain pending and under examination herein.
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 .
Withdrawn Objection(s)/Rejection(s)
The outstanding informality objections have been addressed by way of appropriate amendments to the Specification and claim 8.
The outstanding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been obviated by the cancellation of claim 2, the amendments to claims 6, 8 and 9, and in view of Applicant’s argument as to claim 13.
The outstanding rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) has been obviated by the amendment to claim 1 stipulating that the SCA is di(isopropyl) dimethoxysilane and the ALA is iso-propyl myristate.
The outstanding rejections on non-statutory double patenting grounds and under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/103 have been mooted by the cancellation of claims 11-12.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 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, 6-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (US 2012/0322964 A1) (‘Chen’) as evidenced by Kilty et al (US 6825146 B2) (‘Kilty’).
Regarding Claims 1 and 6; Chen discloses a process for the production of propylene
homopolymer comprising the step of polymerizing propylene in the presence of a catalyst to obtain a
propylene homopolymer having an XS in the range from 2.0 to 7.0 wt.%, specifically 3.05% (see [0170]
and [0177], Table 6: Ex. # E-88). The catalyst comprises Procatalyst # S-8, obtained by combining
procatalyst precursor SHAC™ 310 with internal electron donor (IED) 8, wherein SHAC™ 310 is a
benzoate-containing catalyst with ethyl benzoate as the internal donor (corresponding to claimed
procatalyst component ii); see [0168], Table 3). In this regard, Chen discloses that SHAC™ 310 was made
according to Example 2 in U.S. Pat. No. 6,825,146 (Kilty) ([0168]). Example 2 of Kilty provides evidence that SHAC™ 310 also comprises a magnesium-containing support with TiCl4 (corresponding to claimed
procatalyst component i); see Kilty at col. 11, lines 65-66 and col. 13, lines 1-6). Further, the IED 8 is an
amidobenzoate corresponding to claimed formula B (of procatalyst component iii)), where: each R90 is a
substituted aromatic group; R⁹³, R⁹⁴, R⁹⁵, R⁹⁶ and R⁹⁷ are each hydrogen; and R91 and R⁹² are each a
branched alkyl group (see Chen, [0165], Table 1: Compound (8)). In addition, in the polymerization of
Ex. # E-88, this procatalyst is contacted with a cocatalyst (triethyl aluminum), an external electron donor
(EED) and an activity limiting agent (ALA), wherein the EED and ALA are n-propyltrimethoxy silane (N)
and isopropyl myristate (IPM), respectively, and are used at a ratio N/IPM of 10/90 [for claim 6] (see [0177], Table 6).
Chen differs from the claimed subject matter only in failing to disclose a specific embodiment wherein the selectivity control agent (SCA) is diisopropyldimethoxysilane and the activity limiting agent (ALA) is isopropyl myristate.
Nevertheless, Chen explicitly teaches both diisopropyldimethoxysilane and isopropyl myristate, and propyldimethoxysilane and isopropyl myristate among a finite number of alternative choices for the EED/ALA mixture, which may be mixed together in advance and then added to the catalyst composition and/or into the reactor as a mixture (see [0080]). All EED/ALA mixtures listed in this embodiment are considered equivalents for the purposes of Chen. Moreover, an artisan of ordinary skill would have gleaned from the listed examples that Chen regards diisopropyldimethoxysilane and isopropyl myristate as a viable alternative mixture to n-propyltrimethoxysilane and isopropyl myristate, the particular mixture used in Ex. # E-88, discussed above. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the process of Chen by substituting the n-propyldimethoxysilane/isopropyl myristate mixture by a diisopropyldimethoxysilane/isopropyl myristate mixture, as the two EED/ALA mixtures are considered to be equivalents known for the same purpose. Simple substitution of one known element/material for another to obtain predictable results, provides the rationale for a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B). Further, the resulting process will meet all the requirements of claim 1, including the production of a propylene homopolymer having an amount of xylene solubles (XS) in a the range from 2.0 to 7.0 wt.%, as claimed.
Regarding Claim 7, Chen further discloses wherein the process may be a gas-phase polymerization process (see [0086]).
Regarding Claim 10, Chen implicitly discloses wherein the process is phthalate free and/or is free of 9,9-bis(methoxy)fluorene, inasmuch as neither of these compounds is mentioned as a component of the catalyst composition or polymerization media used in the process according to Chen, Ex. # E-88, discussed above.
Claims 1, 7-10 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuideveld, et al (WO 2015/185490 A1) (‘Zeuideveld’) in view of Fedec, et al (WO 2019/241063 A1) (‘Fedec’).
Regarding Claims 1 and 14; Zuideveld discloses a procatalyst composition that comprises a monoester and an internal electron donor compound represented by a Formula A, which is indicated to allow the preparation of polyolefins, particularly polypropylenes (PP) that have broader molecular weight distribution, higher polymer yield and good stereospecificity, i.e. high isotacticity, hence low xylene solubles, for instance, lower than 6 wt.% (see p. 10, lines 5-20; p. 15, lines 25-30 and p. 16, lines 7-9). Zuideveld specifically describes (see p. 76-77, Table 1) a process for the production of propylene homopolymer comprising the step of polymerizing propylene in the presence of a catalyst system to obtain a propylene homopolymer. As disclosed (see pp. 73-76, Example 1), the catalyst system is obtained by a process comprising steps of: A) providing a Ziegler-Natta procatalyst comprising a magnesium-containing support with i) a halogen-containing Ti compound, ii) ethylbenzoate as an activator, iii) and as an internal donor an amidobenzoate according to claimed formula B (viz., 4-[benzoyl(methyl)amino]pentan-2-yl benzoate (aminobenzoate, AB, AB/Mg = 0.15 mol)) [for claim 14] and B) contacting said Ziegler-Natta procatalyst obtained in step A) with a co-catalyst (triethylaluminum) and a SCA (n-propyltrimethoxysilane as external donor; see p. 76, line 25 et seq.). Zuideveld further equates n-propyl trimethoxysilane and di-isopropyl dimethoxysilane in a limited list of specific external electron donors (also referred to as selectivity control agent) affecting seteroselectivity of the catalyst system in polymerization of olefins having three or more carbon atoms (see p. 56, lines 21-24 and p. 63, lines 13-16).
Zuideveld does not report values for XS of the homopolymers obtained according to Ex. # 1-3 of Table 1 but generally expresses preference for XS amounts from about 0.5 wt.% to about 10 wt.%, and, most preferably, lower than 2.7 wt.% (see p. 67, II. 30-33). Zuideveld also does not teach combining the SCA with an ALA as per claimed step B) of the present invention.
Nevertheless, in analogous art related to propylene-ethylene copolymer compositions and methods of production, Fedec discloses Ziegler-Natta procatalyst compositions for producing propylene-ethylene random copolymers, wherein a XS fraction can be less than or equal to 7.0% by weight of the copolymer (see [0012], [0034]-[0035] and [0042]) -- specifically from 2.98 to 6.61 (wt. %) for propylene-ethylene copolymer samples produced using a Ziegler-Natta magnesium supported/titanium-based catalyst (see pp. 24-25, Table 1). Fedec generally teaches that suitable catalyst compositions comprise a pro-catalyst composition, a co-catalyst, and an external electron donor or a mixed external electron donor (M-EED), with suitable external donors including one or more activity limiting agents (ALA), one or more selectivity control agents (SCA) or both an ALA and an SCA (see [0093]). Fedec appreciates the effect of the ALA as a composition that decreases catalyst activity as the polymerization temperature in the presence of the catalyst rises above a threshold temperature, and of the SCA as a composition that improves polymer tacticity, meaning increased tacticity or reduced xylene solubles, or both (see id.).
Fedec further teaches an embodiment in which a mixture of individual external electron donors components can be added into the reactor separately or two or more can be mixed together in advance and then added into the reactor as a mixture (see [0104]). In such embodiment, Fedec teaches that the mixture is dicyclopentyldimethoxysilane and isopropyl myristate; diisopropyldimethoxysilane and isopropyl myristate; dicyclopentyldimethoxysilane and polyethylene glycol) laurate; dicyclopentyldimethoxy silane and isopropyl myristate and polyethylene glycol) dioleate; methylcyclohexyldimethoxysilane and isopropyl myristate; n-propyltrimethoxysilane and isopropyl myristate; dimethyldimethoxysilane and methylcyclohexyldimethoxysilane and isopropyl myristate; dicyclopentyldimethoxysilane and n-propyltriethoxysilane and isopropyl myristate; diisopropyldimethoxysilane and n-propyltriethoxysilane and isopropyl myristate; and dicyclopentyldimethoxysilane and tetraethoxysilane and isopropyl myristate; dicyclopentyldimethoxysilane and diisopropyldimethoxysilane and n-propyltriethoxysilane and isopropyl myristate; and combinations thereof (see id.). As such, Fedec teaches diisopropyldimethoxysilane and isopropyl myristate among a limited number of alternative choices for the SCA/ALA mixture. All SCA/ALA mixtures listed in this embodiment are considered equivalents for the purposes of Fedec. Further, an artisan of ordinary skill would have gleaned from both Zuideveld and Fedec that diisopropyldimethoxysilane and n-propyltrimethoxysilane are viable alternatives as the external donor/SCA component. Accordingly, absent a probative showing of criticality in use of the claimed SCA/ALA combination, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the process of Zuideveld by contacting the Ziegler-Natta procatalyst with a co-catalyst and a SCA in combination with an ALA to obtain the catalyst system, wherein the SCA is diisopropyldimethoxysilane and the ALA is isopropyl myristate as per Fedec. An ordinarily skilled artisan would have been well motivated to do so in order to regulate catalyst activity with rising polymerization temperature and in the expectation of obtaining a propylene homopolymer or propylene-ethylene copolymer having an XS in the range from 2.0 to 7.0 wt.%, as claimed, consistent with the teachings of Fedec.
Regarding Claims 7-9, Zuideveld in view of Fedec renders obvious the process according to claim 1 as discussed above. Zuideveld further teaches wherein the process is a gas phase polymerization process, performed in at least one horizontal and/or vertical gas phase reactor (see p. 65, II. 17-29).
Regarding Claim 10, Zuideveld in view of Fedec renders obvious the process according to claim 1 as discussed above. Fedec further teaches wherein the process is phthalate free and/or is free of 9,9-bis(methoxy)fluorene (i.e., Ziegler-Natta catalysts containing non-phthalate internal donors; see [0041]).
Regarding Claim 13, Zuideveld in view of Fedec renders obvious the process according to claim 1 as discussed above. Zuideveld further teaches wherein step A) to provide the Ziegler-Natta procatalyst comprises steps corresponding to claimed steps i), ii) and iii) (see pp. 73-76, Example 1, especially step i -Phase A, step ii- Phase B, and Phase C).
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments filed 09/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive of patentability.
Applicant essentially argues that the Non-Final Office Action (OA) dated April 6, 2026 has (i) failed to establish that Chen as evidenced by Kilty¹ would disclose or suggest at least a Selectivity Control Agent (SCA) of di(isopropyl) dimethoxysilane and an Activity Limiting Agent (ALA) of iso-propyl myristate, as required by Claim 1; and (ii) failed to establish that Zuideveld in view of Fedec would disclose or suggest at least a Selectivity Control Agent (SCA) of di(isopropyl) dimethoxysilane and an Activity Limiting Agent (A A) of iso-propyl myristate, as required by Claim 1. (Reply at 10-11)
Initially, it should be noted that there was no need for the Non-Final OA to establish that Chen/Kilty or Zuideveld in view of Fedec disclose or suggest at least a Selectivity Control Agent (SCA) of di(isopropyl) dimethoxysilane and an Activity Limiting Agent (ALA) of iso-propyl myristate, since none of the then-pending claims were limited to that particular combination of SCA and ALA. Now that claim 1 has been amended to positively require that combination, it is submitted that the above rejections each present proper equivalency rationale and articulated motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified either the process of Chen by substituting the n-propyldimethoxysilane/isopropyl myristate mixture of Ex. # E-88 by a diisopropyldimethoxysilane/isopropyl myristate SCA/ALA mixture as required by the present invention; or the process of Zuideveld by contacting Zuideveld’s Ziegler-Natta procatalyst with a co-catalyst and a SCA/ALA combination to obtain the catalyst system, where the SCA is diisopropyldimethoxysilane and the ALA is isopropyl myristate as per Fedec. Accordingly, the Office considers that the presented points of argument (i) – (ii) have been adequately addressed on the record and that the above rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 remain tenable and therefore must be maintained.
Conclusion
Pending claims 1, 6-10 and 13-14 stand rejected. No claims are in condition for allowance at this time.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner F. M. Teskin whose telephone number is (571) 272-1116. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM - 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, Robert Jones, can be reached at (571) 270-7733. The appropriate 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, 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.
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/FRED M TESKIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
/FMTeskin/10-02-26
