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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-11 and 13-15 in the reply filed on 7/21/26 is acknowledged.
Claim 12 and 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/21/26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, which all claims depend upon, states that R4 of formula 2 of the “trialkoxysilane” can be an alkoxy group, however that would make it a tetraalkoxysilane and thus contradicting the “trialkoxysilane-based compound” mentioned earlier in the claim and therefore making the claim indefinite.
As to claim 11, “mixed at a molar ratio of 1:1 to 1:2 is unclear. Is the molar ratio referring to the monomers
1) for the “homopolymerization of propylene or copolymerization of propylene and ethylene” to “copolymerization of propylene and an ethylene or alpha-olefin comonomer.”
2) for the propylene and “ethylene or alpha-olefin comonomer” of the second copolymerization?
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(s) 1-10 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 2010027875 (herein Lee).
In setting forth the instant rejection, a machine translation of Lee has been relied upon, which is included with the instant rejection.
As to claims 1 and 13, Lee discloses a method for producing a propylene polymer (see abstract and examples) using a catalyst system and a catalyst system thereof comprising “a Ziegler-based catalyst including magnesium, titanium, halogen and inside electron donors as a main catalyst component, an alkyl aluminum compound as a co-catalyst” and an external electron donor. See abstract. The external electron donor is exemplified as diisopropyldimethoxysilane (dialkoxysilane reading on formula 1), isobutyltriethoxysilane (trialkoxysilane reading on formula 2), and vinyltriethoxysilane (trialkoxysilane reading on formula 3) in ratios of 4:2:1 (examples 1-9 and 11), 4:1:2 (example 9), and 3.3:3:1.7 (example 10). See table 1 and pages 8-11.
As to claims 2-3 and 14-15, this property appears to be inherent because the catalyst system is identical and therefore, identical catalysts would have identical properties. Note that Lee teaches the polymerization of homopolymers of propylene and copolymers of propylene and ethylene or C4-C6 alpha olefins. See page 7.
As to claim 4, Lee teaches “5 to 40 wt% magnesium, 0.5 to 10 wt% titanium, 50 to 85 wt% halogen, and 2.5 to 30 wt% internal electron donor”. See page 3 and examples.
As to claim 5, the internal electron donor is taught as diethyl phthalate (phthalic acid ester). See pages 3-4 and examples.
As to claim 6, the alkyl aluminum is taught as triethyl aluminum etc. (R=2 carbon). See page 4 and examples.
As to claim 7, the molar ratio of aluminum atoms in the cocatalyst to titanium
1 to 1000 and within the claimed range. See page 7 and examples.
As to claim 8, the molar ratio of silicon atoms to titanium atoms is 1 to 100. See page 7 and examples.
As to claims 9-10, the molar ratios taught in examples 1-11 of 4:2:1 (examples 1-9 and 11), 4:1:2 (example 9), and 3.3:3:1.7 (example 10) fall within the claimed ranges. Also see page 7.
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.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 2010027875 (herein Lee) in view of US 2020/0199274 (herein Hosaka).
The discussion with respect to Lee set-forth above is incorporated herein by reference.
As to claim 11, Lee is silent on the claimed steps.
Hosaka teaches similar methods of polymerizing propylene. See abstract and examples. Hosaka discloses that it is advantageous to utilize similar catalyst to produce block copolymers involves a first state homopolymerization of propylene followed by a second stage polymerization of propylene and ethylene. See paragraph 252. The molar ratio of propylene to ethylene is exemplified as 1:1. See paragraph 318. These block copolymers are advantageous because they have favorable moldability (see paragraph 350) and other properties (see paragraph 248, 8, 24, abstract and examples).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to have modified the method of Lee with the two stages of first homopolymerization followed by copolymerization of propylene and ethylene at a molar ratio of 1:1 as taught by Hosaka because one would want to yield polymers that are advantageous because they have favorable moldability (see paragraph 350 of Hosaka) and other properties (see paragraph 248, 8, 24, abstract and examples of Hosaka).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK S KAUCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-7340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-6 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, Arrie Lanee Reuther can be reached at (571) 270-7026. 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.
/MARK S KAUCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights