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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to applicant’s amendment filed 2/23/2026.
Claims 1-3, 5-27 are pending.
The previous rejection of claims 1-6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15-20, 23, 24, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eldin (US2004/0034247) is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment.
The previous rejection of claims 7, 9 and 21, 22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eldin (US2004/0034247) in view of Gande et al (WO0036052) is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment.
The previous rejection of claims 14 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eldin (US2004/0034247) is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment.
The previous rejection of claims 12 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eldin (US2004/0034247) in view of Ferrell (US4670131) is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment.
The Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 2/23/2023 has been considered but are moot because the prior rejections have been withdrawn in view of the amendments.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/23/2026 have been considered by the examiner. Initialed copies accompany this action.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14-17, 19, 20, 23, 24, 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shahid (US6,525,146) in view of Benage et al. (US7,045,647).
Regarding claims 1, 5, 15, 18, Shahid discloses a method for inhibiting the polymerization of olefin monomers, diene monomers including butadiene, chloroprene, isoprene (col 4, ln 14-19) which gives rise to popcorn polymer growth (col 1, ln 5-10), the method comprising: adding a treatment composition to a monomer containing system, said system comprises popcorn polymer seeds (col 6, ln 25-63). The treatment composition comprises a hindered or unhindered phenol (abstract). Benage discloses using quinone alkide including quinone methide (col 5, ln 65) to inhibiting the polymerization of ethylenically unstaturated monomers including butadiene, chloroprene, isoprene (col 1, ln 14-17; col 13, ln 30-41). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the invention to use quinone alkide including quinone methide in method of Shahid and the result of inhibiting the polymerization of diene monomers, which gives rise to popcorn polymer growth, would have been predictable. Simple substitution of one known inhibitor for another inhibitor would achieve the predictable result of inhibiting popcorn polymerization.
Regarding claims 2 and 16, Shahid discloses said monomer containing system comprises an olefin monomer production system, a monomer recovery process, or a monomer production process (col 6, ln 25-63).
Regarding claims 3 and 17, Shahid said system comprises isoprene, 1,3-butadiene, or chloroprene (col 4, ln 14-19).
Regarding claims 6 and 19, Benage discloses quinone methide based compound is a quinone methide derivative having the below formula (col 12, ln 27-55) that meets the claimed formula (I).
PNG
media_image1.png
149
145
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 8 and 20, Benage discloses the quinone methide based compound comprises 2,6-ditert-butyl-4-((3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxy-benzylidene)-cyclohexa-2,5- dienone, or 4-benzylidene-2,6-di-tert-butylcyclohexa-2,5-dienone (col 12, ln 57; col 13, ln 3-4).
Regarding claims 10 and 23, Shahid discloses the method according to Claim 4, wherein said treatment composition further comprises an antioxidant (2,6-di-tert-butyl-paracresol, butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) col 5, ln 9-11) or an oxygen scavenger (diethylhydroxylamine, hydroxybenzylphenylamines, para 0017).
Regarding claims 11 and 24, Shahid discloses the treatment composition comprises an antioxidant butylated hydroxytoluene (col 5, ln 11).
Regarding claims 13 and 26, Shahid discloses the oxygen scavenger comprises hydroxypropyl hydroxylamine (para 0017).
Regarding claims 14 and 27, Shahid discloses the oxygen scavenger catalyzed hydroxylamines comprise a combination of hydroquinone with (i) diethylhydroxylamine and/or (ii) hydroxypropyl Hydroxylamine (col 3, ln 34-56).
Claims 7, 9 and 21, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shahid (US6,525,146) in view of Benage et al. (US7,045,647) as applied above, and further in view of Gande et al (WO0036052).
Shahid in view of Benage discloses a method for inhibiting the polymerization of olefin monomers described above and is incorporated herein by reference. Benage does not specifically disclose the quinone methide derivative as recited in claims 7 and 9. Gande discloses inhibiting the polymerization of olefin monomers using 2,6-di-tert-butyl-4-methoxymethylphenol, 2,2'- methylenebis(6-tert-butyl-4-ethylphenol) and 4,4'-methylenebis(2,6-di-tert-butylphenol) (page 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the invention to use alkylidenebisphenols including 2,2'- methylenebis(6-tert-butyl-4-ethylphenol) and 4,4'-methylenebis(2,6-di-tert-butylphenol) as taught by Gande as the quinone methide derivative in the method Shahih, because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution, and the results were reasonably predictable. Case law holds that the mere substitution of an equivalent (something equal in value or meaning) is not an act of invention; where equivalency is known to the prior art, the substitution of one equivalent for another is not patentable. See In re Ruff 118 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1958).
Claims 12 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shahid (US6,525,146) in view of Benage et al. (US7,045,647) as applied above, and further in view of Ferrell (US4670131).
Shahih in view of Benage discloses a method for inhibiting the polymerization of olefin monomers described above and is incorporated herein by reference. Shahih does not disclose the composition comprises a metal chelant, wherein said metal chelant comprises alkyphenol- formaldehyde-amine adducts, N,N’-disalieylidene-1,2-propanediamine, 2,2’- methylidene-bis(2,6-di t-butyl-cresol), or combinations thereof. Ferrell discloses inhibiting the polymerization of olefin monomers such as butadiene, isoprene, (col 4, ln 65 to col 5, ln 6) using alkyphenol- formaldehyde-amine adducts (Nonylphenol-formaldehyde resin, Table 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the invention to use Nonylphenol-formaldehyde resin as taught by Ferrell as the metal chelant in the method Shahih, because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution, and the results were reasonably predictable. Case law holds that the mere substitution of an equivalent (something equal in value or meaning) is not an act of invention; where equivalency is known to the prior art, the substitution of one equivalent for another is not patentable. See In re Ruff 118 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1958).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 2/23/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 HAIDUNG D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5455. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 10a-3p.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 571-272-2817. 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.
/HAIDUNG D NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
3/20/2026