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 .
This application is in response an amendment filed on 05/14/2026.
Claims 1-24 are pending. Applicant has amended claims 1, 7 and added new claim 24.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 05/14/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patent No.: 10,889,664 and US Patent NO.: 11,384,171 have been reviewed and are accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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 1-19 and 21-24 are rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDaniel et al (US PGPUB NO.: 2019/0314797 A1, IDS cited reference by applicant and referred to as “McDaniel (‘797)”) in view of McDaniel (US Patent No.: 4,368,303, IDS Cited reference by applicant, referred to as “McDaniel (‘303)”).
As per Claims 1-2, 18-19, 21, 24 McDaniel (‘797) discloses a method comprising: contacting a chrominated-silica support with solubilized titanium mixture (STM) to produce titanated-chrominated silica support (paragraphs 0007-step d, 0014,0020), wherein the solubilized titanium mixture (titanium-containing solution) comprises a solvent, (i.e., water, alcohol, paragraphs 0051-0052, reads on claimed limitation of solvent of claims 1 and claim 21 limitation of solvent comprising of water, alcohol) a carboxylic acid, a titanium-containing compound and a nitrogen-containing compound (see paragraphs 0007, 0051) and pH of solubilized titanium mixture is range of 3.5 to 4.5 (reads on claim 1 and claim 2 for pH ranges, paragraph 0056). McDaniel (‘797) further discloses contacting silica support with the STM and chromium under suitable conditions (see paragraph 0014). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
McDaniel (‘797) does not explicitly disclose or suggest titanium-chromium-containing solution comprising of chromium-containing compound and a surfactant.
However since ‘797 discloses contacting chromium-silica support with solubilized titanium mixture (i.e., titanium-containing solution) and also discloses contacting silica support with the STM and chromium under suitable conditions to form a titanated-chromium silica support (see paragraph 0007, 0014) therefore change in sequence of adding chromium-containing compound along with titanium-containing solution forming titanium-chromium-containing solution would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art absent evidence to the contrary, See MPEP 2144.04. “In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930)
McDaniel (‘797) does not explicitly disclose or suggest titanium-chromium-containing solution comprising a surfactant.
However, McDaniel (‘303) teaches catalyst suitable for use in slurry polymerization system (Col.1 lines 65-67) and providing improved olefin polymerization process (Col.2 lines 1-2) wherein the method comprising silica-chromium oxide (Col.8 lines 64-68), impregnated with an aqueous titanium-containing composition wherein the aqueous titanium-containing compound comprising of a titanium-containing compound (Col.9 lines 6-8, Col.4 lines 30-55, col.3 lines 45-48) diluting with water (see Col. 5 lines 26-35), addition of organic acid (i.e., carboxylate, Col. 3 lines 9-15), addition of pore preserving agent comprising of surfactant where surfactant can be cationic, anionic, and non-ionic surfactants in an amount from about 0.1 to 0.5 wt% (i.e., reads on claimed limitation of surfactant of Claim 1 and surfactant comprise of a water-insoluble component and a water insoluble component of claim 18, reads on claim 24-overlaps claimed range of surfactant, see Col.2 lines 28-45, Col.3 lines 64-67, lines 27-30, see claims 1, 14, 16 of “303) and further mention polyethoxylated sorbitol monolaurate, polyethoxylated t-octyl-phenol (considered as polyethoxylates, see col.3 lines 27-30, reads on claim 19). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Given, McDaniel(‘797) and McDaniel (‘303) are both directed for catalyst suitable for polymerization catalyst and McDaniel (‘303) teaching adding surfactant as pore preserving agent (i.e., surfactant) to titanium-containing solution, therefore, It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of applicant invention to add the surfactant in titanium-containing solution of McDaniel (‘303) with titanium-chromium-containing solution of McDaniel (‘797) which enhance the beneficial qualities of the catalyst and to provide improved olefin polymerization process as taught by McDaniel (‘303, Col.2 lines 1-2, Col.4 lines).
As per claims 3-6, McDaniel (‘797) teaches wherein the silica support has silica in range from about 70 wt.% to about 95 wt.% based upon a total weight of the silica support and further possesses a surface area in a range of from about 100-1000 m2/gram, has pore volume in a range of from about 1.0 cm3/gram to about 2.5 cm3/gram, have an average pore size in range from about 10 Angstroms to about 1000 Angstroms and have average particle size in a range of from about 10-500 microns (paragraphs 0018-0020). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As per claim 7, McDaniel (‘797) teaches silica support can be hydrogel (paragraphs 0019-0020).
McDaniel (‘303) teaches silica support can be hydrogel or xerogel (see abstract, Col.2 lines 8-11, see claim 18 of ‘30).
As per Claim 8, McDaniel (‘797) teaches wherein titanium-containing has formula Ti(OR)4, TiO(OR)2, Ti(OR)2(acac)2, or Ti(OR)2(oxal) where “acac” is acetylacetonate, “oxal” is oxalate and each R is independently is ethyl, isopropyl, n-propyl, isobutyl, or n-butyl, “acac” is acetylacetonate and “oxal” is oxalate (abstract, paragraphs 0024-0027).
McDaniel (‘303) teaches titanium-containing compound comprising of diisopropoxy titanium acetylacetonate (Col.9 lines 6-8, Col.4 lines 30-55).
As per Claims 9-10, McDaniel (‘797) teaches titanium-containing compound comprises a titanium (IV) compound (paragraphs 0024-0027) having at least one carboxylate and also carboxylate provided in form of carboxylic acid which comprises mono carboxylate, multi carboxylate and alpha hydroxyl carboxylate or combination thereof (paragraphs 0016, 0047-0049, 0029-0031,0051, 0054, 0129) wherein carboxylate is provided in form of carboxylic acid such as lactic acid, glycolic acid, malonic acid, gluconic acid, glyoxylic acid, oxalic acid, citric acid, malic acid, gluconic acid, tartaric acid, lactic acid and combination thereof (Paragraph 0030).
McDaniel (‘303) teaches addition of organic acid in titanium-containing solution comprising of organic acids such as tartaric acid, citric acid, gluconic acid, malonic acid (reads on claim 10 limitation of at least one carboxylate ligand), Col.3 lines 9-15).
As per Claim 11, McDaniel (‘797) teaches wherein equivalent molar ratio of titanium-containing compound to carboxylic acid is in a range from about 1:1 to 1:10 (paragraphs 0004-0005, 0016, 0050, 0054), the skill in the artisan would expect that, by inverting this ratio, an equivalent molar ratio of carboxylate to titanium would result in 1:1 and 10:1 (reads on claimed limitation of equivalent molar ratio of the carboxylate to titanium-containing compound is in range from about 1 to 4).
McDaniel (‘303) teaches ratio of organic acid (i.e., carboxylate) to titanium compound from 1:1 and 10:1 (claim 20 of ‘303).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As per Claims 12-13, McDaniel et al (‘797) teaches a titanium-containing compound comprising of a titanium (IV) alkoxide and titanium (IV) alkoxide may be titanium (IV) ethoxide, titanium (IV) isopropoxide, titanium (IV) n-propoxide, titanium (IV) n-butoxide, titanium (IV) 2-ethylhexoxide or combination thereof (paragraph 0025).
McDaniel (‘303) teaches titanium-containing compound comprising of titanium (IV) alkoxide (i.e., titanium tetraisopropoxide, see claim 12, Col.3 lines 45-48).
As per Claim 14, McDaniel et al (/797) teaches titanium-containing compound comprising of hydrous titania, titanium hydroxide, titanic acid, titanyl sulfate, titanium acetylacetonate, titanium oxyacetylacetonate, or a combination thereof (paragraph 0026).
As per Claims 15-16, McDaniel (‘797) teaches titanium-containing compound comprising of a titanium(IV) halide which include titanium tetrachloride, titanium tetrabromide, titanium (IV) oxychloride, and titanium(IV) oxybromide or a combination thereof. Further McDaniel (‘797) teaches titanium alkoxyhalide having the general formula Ti(OR)nQ4-n; wherein R may be ethyl, isopropyl, n-propyl, isobutyl, n-butyl, or a combination thereof; wherein Q may be a fluoride, a chloride, a bromide, an iodide, or a combination thereof; and wherein n may be an integer from 1 to 4 (paragraph 0027).
As per Claim 17, McDaniel (‘797) teaches a titanium-containing compound is present in an amount of from about 0.1 to 25 wt.% based upon a total weight of the titanium-containing solution (paragraph 0028). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As per claim 22, McDaniel (‘797) teaches wherein the alcohol comprises methanol, ethanol, n- propanol, isopropanol, n-butanol, isobutanol, pentanol, hexanol, cyclohexanol, heptanol, octanol, benzyl alcohol, phenol, or a combination thereof (paragraph 0052).
As per claim 23, McDaniel (‘797) teaches heating the titanated-chrominated silica support in a reducing environment (i.e., air) to a temperature in a range of from about 400° C o about 1000° C to form a polymerization catalyst (paragraph 0064). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 20 is rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDaniel et al (US PGPUB NO.: 2019/0314797 A1, IDS cited reference by applicant and referred to as “McDaniel (‘797)”) in view of McDaniel (US Patent No.: 4,368,303, IDS Cited reference by applicant, referred to as “McDaniel (‘303)”) and in further view of McDaniel et al (US Patent No.: 4,169,926, referred as “McDaniel (‘926)”, IDS cited reference by applicant).
McDaniel et al (‘797) in view of McDaniel (‘303) teaches the method steps as set forth above and further McDaniel (‘303) suggest aqueous titanium composition can be combined with hydrogel along with pore preserving agent and whereas pore preserving agent comprising of surfactant where surfactant can be cationic, anionic, and non-ionic surfactants.
McDaniel (‘303 and ‘797) does not explicitly disclose or suggest surfactant comprises alkyl sulfates, aryl sulfates, alkylaryl sulfates, alkyl sulfonates, aryl sulfonates, alkylaryl sulfonates, phosphates of alkali metals, ammonium salts of phosphates, alkylsulfonic acids, sulfosuccinate salts, fatty acid salts, ethoxylated alcohols, amphiphilic copolymers or a combination thereof.
However, McDaniel (‘926) teaches silica hydrogel comprising contacting with pore preserving agent comprising of surfactant comprising of anionic, cationic, and nonionic which includes sulfonates, alkyl sulfates, sulfosuccinates salts, ethoxylated alcohols (Col.3 lines 48-67, Col.4 lines 1-43).
Given, McDaniel (“797), McDaniel (‘303) and McDaniel (‘926) are directed for catalyst suitable for polymerization catalyst and further McDaniel (‘303) and McDaniel (‘926) suggest hydrogel contacting with pore preserving agent comprising of surfactant, therefore, It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of applicant invention to use surfactants such as alkyl sulfates, sulfosuccinates salts, ethoxylated alcohol of McDaniel (‘926) as an alternative surfactant disclosed in McDaniel (‘303) and McDaniel (‘797) which would provide improved process of polymerization olefins as taught by McDaniel (‘926, Col.2 lines 45-46).
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant’s arguments, see applicant remarks on pages 8-11, filed on 05/14/2026 with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-19 and 21-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 McDaniel et al (USPGUB No.: 2019/0314797 A1 (‘797) in view of McDaniel et al (US Patent No.: 4,368,303 (‘303) and rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 McDaniel et al (USPGUB No.: 2019/0314797 A1 (‘797) in view of McDaniel et al (US Patent No.: 4,368,303 (‘303) and in further view of McDaniel et al (US Patent No.: 4,169,926 (‘926) is not persuasive and therefore the rejections have been maintained.
Applicant mainly argues that McDaniel ‘303 and McDaniel ‘926 fails to teach or suggest a titanium-chromium-containing solution that comprises a titanium-containing compound, a chromium-containing compound, a solvent, and a surfactant, as recited in independent claim 1.
However, examiner traverse the applicant’s argument and the fact remains McDaniel (‘797) discloses a method comprising: contacting a chrominated-silica support with solubilized titanium mixture (STM) to produce titanated-chrominated silica support (paragraphs 0007-step d, 0014,0020), wherein the solubilized titanium mixture (titanium-containing solution) comprises a solvent, (i.e., water, alcohol, paragraphs 0051-0052, reads on claimed limitation of solvent of claims 1 and claim 21 limitation of solvent comprising of water, alcohol) a carboxylic acid, a titanium-containing compound and a nitrogen-containing compound (see paragraphs 0007, 0051) and pH of solubilized titanium mixture is range of 3.5 to 4.5 (reads on claim 1 and claim 2 for pH ranges, paragraph 0056). McDaniel (‘797) further discloses contacting silica support with the STM and chromium under suitable conditions (reads on contacting silica support with titanium-chromium containing solution to form titanated-chrominated silica support, see paragraph 0014). McDaniel ‘797 does not explicitly disclose or suggest titanium-chromium containing solution containing surfactant but however, McDaniel ‘303 suggest the utilization of surfactant and McDaniel ‘926 suggest utilization of types of surfactant that can be used in forming titanium chromium containing solution as set forth in the rejections above.
In addition, it is noted that while McDaniel ‘303 and ‘926 does not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, McDaniel ‘303 is used as teaching reference, namely for a surfactant where surfactant can be cationic, anionic, and non-ionic surfactants and McDaniel ‘926 is used s teaching reference, namely for surfactant comprising of anionic, cationic, and nonionic which includes sulfonates, alkyl sulfates, sulfosuccinates salts, ethoxylated alcohols (Col.3 lines 48-67, Col.4 lines 1-43) in order to provide improved olefin polymerization process, and therefore, it is not necessary for these secondary references (McDaniel ‘303 and ‘926) to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA1981). Rather these references teach a certain concept, and in combination with the primary reference (McDaniel ‘797), discloses the presently claimed invention. Therefore the rejections is maintained.
Further, amendment to the claims overcomes claim objections and specification objection of record.
Further, Terminal disclaimer filed and approved overcomes the double patenting rejections of record.
Conclusion
8. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SMITA S PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-5837. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-W.
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).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ching-Yiu Fung can be reached on 5712705713. The 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, 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.
/SMITA S PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 07/22/2026
Prosecution Insights