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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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(s) 16-18, 31-33, and 36, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GB 1,338,091 A to Reid et al. (hereinafter Reid).
Regarding claims 16-18, 31-33, and 36, Reid teaches a catalyst composition for the production of polyester (page 2, ln 5-20), the catalyst comprises at least one metal atom attached to at least one anionic ligand, wherein the remaining valence requirements of the metal atom is satisfied by one or more ligands being the anion of an acid having the formula
PNG
media_image1.png
84
98
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, wherein X1 and X2 is R, wherein R is an alkyl group such as methyl, ethyl, propyl, and butyl (page 2, ln 5-23), Z is specifically phosphorus (page 2, ln 34), and the metal atom is Zn+2 (page 6, ln 45). Specifically, the catalyst composition comprises Zinc dimethylphosphinate (See Table I) with titanium dioxide, wherein dimethyl terephthalate and ethylene glycol are esterified and polymerized in a reaction at 200-280 deg C at a pressure of 0.5 mmHg (i.e. 0.67 mbar) for 30 min to 3 hours, to form a polyester, (page 9, ln 30 to page 11, ln 1), which meets claims 16, 30-33 and 36. Reid further teaches that X1 and X2 may be ethyl groups, (page 2, ln 22), which correlates to a diethylphosphinate when used with above Zn+2, and meets claim 17-18.
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.
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(s) 19-29, 34 and 35, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reid as applied to claims 16 and 31above, and further in view of US 5,981,690 A to Lustig et al. (hereinafter Lustig).
Regarding claims 19-29, 34 and 35, Reid teaches the catalyst composition cited in claim 16 and 31.
Reid does not explicitly teach the tetrahydrocarbyl titanate or titanium chelate, and/or the molar ratio of cocatalyst A to Ti.
However, Lustig teaches a polyester such as a poly(alkyl arylate) of PET, polymerized from a catalyst system of an organic titanate-ligand with a cocatalyst such as an organic phosphors (col 2, ln 24-45) used in the same field of the Applicant’s invention of polyester catalysts. Lustig further teaches examples of organic titanates that may be used include tetraalkyl titanates such as tetrabutyl titanate or triethanolaminoato iospropoxide titanate (col 7, ln 39-43), which meets the claimed tetrahydrocarbyl titanate and/or titanium chelate. Lustig further teaches the catalyst will be dissolved in ethylene glycol (col 8, ln 65-67) solution with the phosphorus compound (col 9, ln 13-16), which meets the claimed solvent, and the molar ratio of P:Ti is within 1:1 to 4:1, (col 9, ln 30-34), which meets the claimed range. Lustig also teaches using the organic titanate ligands reduces/eliminates absorbance of light in the polymer at UV or visible wavelengths to form a PET with improved optical properties (col 3, ln 14-25 and col 6, ln 37-47), with the molar ratio range giving acceptable catalytic activity and coloration. (col 9, ln 34-37).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to use organic titanate-ligand as a cocatalyst in the molar ratio of Lustig with the Zinc dialkylphosphinate of Reid because Lustig teaches the same field of the Applicant’s invention of polyester catalysts and Lustig also teaches using the organic titanate ligands reduces/eliminates absorbance of light in the polymer at UV or visible wavelengths to form a PET with improved optical properties (col 3, ln 14-25 and col 6, ln 37-47), and the molar ratio range gives acceptable catalytic activity and coloration. (col 9, ln 34-37).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HA S NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7395. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, Flex schedule 7:30am-4:00pm.
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 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.
/HA S NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
