DETAILED ACTION
This office action follows a response filed on September 14, 2026. Claims 1-20 were amended. Claims 1-20 remain pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-5, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Govoni et al. (US 5,410,002).
Example 3 of Govoni teaches a solid catalyst component made by contacting magnesium chloride, titanium tetrachloride, and diisobutyl phthalate internal donor. A catalyst is prepared by contacting the solid catalyst component with triethylaluminum activator, diphenyl dimethoxysilane external donor, and sorbitan monoleate as a polyfunctional regulating compound. The catalyst contains 0.01 g of the solid catalyst component and 0.76 g of triethylaluminum activator (col. 8, lines 56-63). Table 1 shows that 0.38 g of sorbitan monooleate is used resulting in a ratio of sorbitan monooleate to triethylaluminum ratio of 0.127. The amount of sorbitan oleate is 38 times the amount of solid catalyst, of which titanium is a fraction, and it is reasonable to conjecture that a ratio of sorbitan oleate to titanium is at least 1. One calculates the amount of triethylaluminum to be 76 times the amount of solid catalyst component and the amount of sorbitan monooleate is 0.127 times the amount of triethylaluminum. It follows that the amount of sorbitan monooleate is (70)(0.127) = 8.9, or about 9 times that of the solid catalyst component and therefore at least 9 times the quantity of titanium. The amount of sorbitan monooleate would also be at least 9 times the quantity of internal electron donor since the internal electron donor is a fraction of the solid catalyst component. The mole ratio of sorbitan monooleate to diphenyl dimethoxysilane external donor is (0.38/428) ÷ (0.081/244) = 2.7. Since the PTO cannot perform experiments to quantify the ratio of sorbitan monooleate to titanium and to internal donor, the burden is shifted to the Applicants to establish an unobviousness difference. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2112-2112.02.
In examples 1-7, the catalyst is used for pre-polymerization of propylene in an autoclave reactor to make polypropylene homopolymer, followed polymerization of propylene and ethylene in the presence of the polypropylene homopolymer. This process can be scaled up in a pilot plant containing a pre-polymerization reactor and a gas phase polymerization reactor and using hydrogen as a molecular weight regulator (col. 10, line 4). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to follow the general procedure shown in example 12 and carrying out polymerization of propylene and ethylene (instead of ethylene and 1-butene) to prepare propylene-ethylene copolymer on a larger scale. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use hydrogen in an amount of from about 11.8 mole % to about 16 mole % (table, column 10), based on total mole of monomer.
Claims 11 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Chen (US 10,926,234).
Run 1-0634 in Table 3 of Chen discloses preparation of polypropylene homopolymer in the presence of V01B procatalyst made of magnesium carrier and containing 2.52 wt % of Ti and 10.34 wt % of diisobutyl phthalate internal donor. A catalyst is prepared by contacting 8.3 mg of procatalyst with 2.0 mmole of triethylaluminum and 0.25 mmole of an external electron donor mixture comprising dicyclopentyl dimethoxysilane (0.04 mmole), methycyclohexyl diethoxysilane 0.06 mmole), and isopropyl myristate (0.15 mmole). The silane compounds are conventional external electron donors and isopropyl myristate is a modifying agent.
The ratio of internal donor to titanium is (10.34 g/278 g/mole) ÷ (2.52 g/48 g/mole) = 0.71. The ratio of aluminum to titanium is 2.0 mmole ÷ (8.3 mg)(0.0252)/(48 mg/mmole) = 460. The ratio of isopropyl mysristate to dicyclopentyl dimethoxysilane is 0.15/0.04 = 3.75. Finally, the ratio of silicon in dicyclopentyl dimethoxysilane to titanium is 0.04 mmole ÷ (8.3 mg)(0.0252)/(48 mg/mmole) = 9.2.
Claims 11, 14, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 7,491,670) in view of Chen (US 10,926,234).
Chen et al. discloses a catalyst composition comprising comprising a procatalyst compound prepared by contacting magnesium diethoxide and titanium ethoxide/chloride and diisobutyl phthalate internal donor. A catalyst is prepared by contacting the procatalyst with triethylaluminum and a selectivity control agent/activity limiting agent (SCA/ALA) mixture comprising n-propyltrimethoxysilane and dibutyl sebacate. The compound n-propyltrimethoxysilane functions as an external electron donor. See Table 2, Run 11a. The ratio of dibutyl sebacate to titanium is 21 and the ratio of n-propyltrimethoxysilane to titanium is 9. The ratio of dibutyl sebacate to n-propyltrimethoxysilane is 2.3. The Al/Ti ratio is 500/1 (col. 14, line 43). The catalyst is used for polymerization of propylene in the presence of 10 psig hydrogen.
Reference does not express this quantity relative to propylene. Chen teaches maintaining a hydrogen to propylene ratio of less than 0.30 since higher amounts of hydrogen reduces catalyst activity and unwanted oxidation of propylene (col. 13, line 10). To achieve this, inventors recommend using hydrogen partial pressure of less than 80 psi (col. 13, line 28). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious from secondary reference that the 10 psig quantity of hydrogen used in Chen et al. is within claimed range of 0.1 mole % to 40 mole %. Moreover, the selection of appropriate hydrogen to propylene ratio to obtain optimal polymer molecular weight is well within the level of, and therefore obvious to, the person of ordinary skill in the art. Whereas Chen et al. teaches polymerization of propylene to make polypropylene homopolymer, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious from Chen (col. 11, line 60) that this class of catalyst is also useful for preparing copolymer of propylene with alpha olefin.
Claims 2 and 13 are 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. None of cited references teaches a molar ratio of modifying agent including a compound of formula (1) and a compound of formula (2) in a range of 1 to 5.
Claims 6-10 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
The rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ling et al. (CN 105440175), set forth in paragraph 32 of the previous office action dated April 28, 2026, has been overcome by amendment. Consequently, the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ling et al. (CN 105440175) in view of Chen et al. (US 2022/0204661), set forth in paragraph 33, has been withdrawn.
The rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by, and under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over, Govoni et al. (US 5,410,002), set forth in paragraph 34 and 35 of the previous office action, have been withdrawn in view of claim amendments.
The rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Govoni et al. (US 5,410,002) in view of Zhu et al. (US 7,326,757), set forth in paragraph 36 of the previous office action, has also been withdrawn.
Conclusion
8. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rip A. Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-1104. The examiner can be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Jones, can be reached at (571)270-7733. 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. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/RIP A LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762 September 28, 2026
