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 .
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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has not been filed in parent CHINA 2023109082241 07/24/2023.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of claims 1-3, 5-6 and species ethyl 2-fluoro-2-(3,4 dibromophenyl) acetate as the specific activator and a vanadium dichloride ethoxy oxide (VO(OEt)Cl₂) as the specific vanadium-based catalyst in the reply filed on 03/21/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 4, 7-13 have been cancelled, and claims 14-15 have been withdrawn, and claims 1-3, 5-6, 14-15 are pending as amended on 03/21/26. Claims 1-3, 5-6 are examined in this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Evens (US 4435552).
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Evens discloses a vanadium-based catalytic system for polymerization of polyolefin comprising vanadium-based catalyst such as vanadium tetrachloride, vanadium oxytrichloride, or vanadium acetyl acetonate and activator such as ethyl chloro(2,4-dichlorophenyl) acetate with structure
(column 3, lines 66-, column 4, lines -4; column 6, lines 12, 60, examples 1-2), meeting the requirement of claim 1.
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.
Claim 3, 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evens as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sadahiko (JP 2006290971).
Evens includes the features of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, Evens discloses vanadium-based catalyst such as vanadium tetrachloride, vanadium oxytrichloride, or vanadium acetyl acetonate (column 3, lines 66-, column 4, lines -4) but does not disclose vanadium dichloride ethoxy oxide (VO(OEt)Cl2).
However, Sadahiko discloses a vanadium-based catalytic system for polymerization of polyolefin comprising vanadium-based catalyst such as vanadium tetrachloride, or vanadium oxytrichloride, and functionally equivalent vanadium dichloride ethoxy oxide (VO(OEt)Cl2) and activator such as CC6H5Cl2COOC2H5 (para [0039], [0059], [01350). Evens and Sadahiko are pertinent to a vanadium-based catalytic system for polymerization of polyolefin comprising vanadium-based catalyst such as vanadium tetrachloride, vanadium oxytrichloride, or vanadium acetyl acetonate and activator.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have used the vanadium dichloride ethoxy oxide (VO(OEt)Cl2) of the claims in the composition of Evens because Sadahiko teaches that the claimed vanadium dichloride ethoxy oxide (VO(OEt)Cl2) and vanadium tetrachloride, or vanadium oxytrichloride of Evens are functionally equivalent and it is prima facie obvious to substitute art-recognized functional equivalents known for the same purpose, see MPEP § 2144.06; In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958).
Regarding claim 5, Evens discloses a vanadium organoaluminum cocatalyst such as ethyl aluminum sesquichloride (column 7, line 23, examples 1-2).
Regarding claim 6, Evens discloses ethyl aluminum sesquichloride (SEAC): 0.6 mmol/l; activator: 0.2 mmol/l; and VOCl3:0.1 mmol/l (table 2, exp 1), fall into claimed range of a molar ratio of aluminum atoms contained in the cocatalyst to the vanadium contained in the vanadium-based catalyst is (1-100): 1; and a molar ratio of the activator to the vanadium contained in the vanadium-based catalyst is (5-80): 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 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: Closest prior arts are of Evens (US 4435552) and Sadahiko (JP 2006290971).
Claim 2 require the activator ethyl 2-fluoro-2-(3,4-dibromophenyl) acetate.
Even though closest prior arts Evens and/or Sadahiko discloses halogenated ethyl phenyl acetate activator, the closest prior arts do not teach or suggest the activator is ethyl 2-fluoro-2-(3,4-dibromophenyl) acetate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUMAR R BHUSHAN whose telephone number is (313)446-4807. The examiner can normally be reached 9.00 AM to 5.50 PM (EST).
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, RANDY P GULAKOWSKI can be reached at (571)272-1302. 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.
/KUMAR R BHUSHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights