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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-3, 5-20, 22-28 are pending.
The previous rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14-17, 19, 20, 23, 24, 26 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shahid (US6,525,146) in view of Benage et al. (US7,045,647) is maintained 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 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) is maintained in view of applicant’s amendment.
The previous rejection of claims 12 and 25 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) is maintained in view of applicant’s amendment.
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, 27 and 28 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) for inhibiting uncontrolled and undesired polymerization of ethylenically unsaturated 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. It is also prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
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).
Regarding claim 28, Shahid and Benage discloses the treatment composition is add to an upstream portion and upstream from the point of desired application of the monomer containing system, wherein the monomer containing system comprises an olefin monomer production system, a monomer recovery process, or a monomer production process (Shahih, col 6, ln 25-63; Benage, col 13, ln 62-col 14, ln 13).
Claims 7, 9 and 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 6/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the polymerization reactions disclosed in Shahid and Benage are different, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have a reasonable expectation of success that an inhibitor to one type of polymerization reaction would work in a different type of polymerization reaction, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not combine the teachings of Shahid and Benage to obtain the claimed invention. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant's arguments are against the references individually, the law held that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Benage is replied upon a teaching of quinone methide for its inhibiting characteristics in preventing uncontrolled and undesired polymerization of ethylenically unsaturated monomers. Therefore, there is a reasonable expectation that using quinone methide taught by Benage in the method of Shahih would prevent popcorn polymerization problems with ethylenically unsaturated monomers, such as butadiene, chloroprene, and isoprene. Further, obviousness only requires a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.
Conclusion
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
6/27/2026
Prosecution Insights