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 .
The Office Action is in response to the application filed November 10, 2023.
Claim Analysis
Summary of Claim 1:
A polyethylene comprising ethylene units and α-olefin comonomer units, the polyethylene having the following characteristics:
a melt index from about 0.1 to about 15 g/10 min as determined by ASTM D1238 under 2.16 kg and at 1900C;
a density from 0.905 to 0.930 g/cc as determined by ASTM D1505;
a molecular weight distribution (Mw/Mn) from about 1.5 to about 2.7;
a Crystallization Elution Fractionation temperature range excluding the first 10% and the last 1% polymer on the temperature scale following the equation: AT [0C] 2- 909*density [g/cc] + 863; and
a lamellar thickness distribution following the equation: F % 510 *(density [g/cc] - 0.905), where F % is the percentage of lamellar thickness greater than 12 nm.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 12 recite the limitation "the temperature scale". Applicants are advised to change “the temperature scale” to “the temperature range” to be consistent with the instant claim language.
Claim 2 recites the acronyms “SSA” and “CEF”. In this case, applicants are advised to write out “SSA” as “successive self-nucleation and annealing (SSA)” in Claim 2 and abbreviate “Crystallization Elution Fractionation” as “CEF” in Claim 1, as supported in the instant Specification [¶ 0015].
Claim 12 recites “the copolymer”. Applicants are advised to change “A polyethylene” to “A polyethylene copolymer” as supported in the instant Specification [¶ 0002, 0012-0014].
Appropriate corrections are required.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-9, 12-13, 15-19, 21-22, 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (US 2006/0041073 A1; cited in the IDS submitted on 11-10-2023; hereafter as “Zhou”).
Regarding Claims 1 and 3-5, Zhou teaches a high-molecular-weight polyethylene (HMW) copolymer comprising ethylene and 1-hexene comonomers [Example 1; ¶ 0104, 0113; Claim 5], corresponding to a polyethylene comprising ethylene units and α-olefin comonomer units of Claim 1, wherein the α-olefin comonomer comprises hexene of Claim 5. Zhou further teaches the HMW copolymer has:
a melt index ranging from about 0.0001 to about 1.0 gram per 10 minutes, wherein the melt index measurements are performed according to ASTM D-1238 [¶ 0029, 0082], which overlaps a melt index from about 0.1 to about 15 g/10min as determined by ASTM D1238 under 2.16 kg and at 190˚C of Claim 1, and a melt index from about 0.5 to about 5 g/10min as determined by ASTM D1238 under 2.16 kg and at 190˚C of Claim 4;
density ranges from about 0.915 to 0.935 g/cm3 [¶ 0031], wherein the density is measured in accordance with ASTM D-1505 [¶ 0031, 0081], which overlaps with a density from 0.905 to 0.930 g/cc as determined by ASTM D1505 of Claim 1, and a density from 0.905 to 0.925 g/cc of Claim 3; and
the Mw/Mn of less than 10 [¶ 0036], which overlaps a molecular weight distribution (Mw/Mn) from about 1.5 to about 2.7 of Claim 1.
However, Zhou does not explicitly teach a melt index from about 0.1 to about 15 g/10 min of Claim 1, a density from 0.905 to 0.930 g/cc of Claim 1, a molecular weight distribution (Mw/Mn) from about 1.5 to about 2.7 of Claim 1, the crystallization elution fractionation (CEF) temperature range of Claim 1, the lamellar thickness (LT) distribution of Claim 1, cumulative fraction difference (S-C) between modified SSA and CEF of Claim 2, and percentage of lamellar thickness greater than 12 nm (F %) is greater than 10% of Claim 6.
Regarding the melt index, density, and molecular weight distribution of Claim 1, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the ranges taught by Zhou for the melt index (from about 0.0001 to about 1.0 gram per 10 minutes), density (from about 0.915 to 0.935 g/cm3), and molecular weight distribution (< 10) overlaps the instantly claimed melt index ranges (0.1 to about 15 g/10min of Claim 1, and from about 0.5 to about 5 g/10min of Claim 4), density ranges (from 0.905 to 0.930 g/cc of Claim 1, and from 0.905 to 0.925 g/cc of Claim 3), and molecular weight distribution ranges (1.5-2.7 of Claim 1) and is therefore considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP section 2144.05.
The properties of polyethylene, such as the CEF temperature range of Claim 1, LT of Claims 1 and 6, and S-C of Claim 2, are functions of the composition of the polyethylene and the method by which it is made. Zhou teaches polymerization of the HMW polyethylene copolymer by gas phase polymerization using a continuous fluidized bed process [¶ 0059], similar to the continuous fluidized gas phase polymerization process to produce the claimed polyethylene disclosed in the instant Specification [¶ 0117-0118]. Since Zhou teaches the same polyethylene formed by the same method as applicants, the polyethylene of Zhou would be expected to result in the same CEF, LT, and S-C as required by the instant claims. Case law has held that claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is expectedly present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. The courts have stated that a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. "Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established." See MPEP section 2112.01.
Regarding Claim 8, Zhou further teaches film comprising the polyethylene [¶ 0074], corresponding to the film of Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 9, Zhou further teaches pellets comprising the polyethylene [¶ 0074], corresponding to the pellet of Claim 9. Zhou is silent to zirconium which will be interpreted to include no zirconium, thereby corresponding to Zr in an amount less than 0.50 ppm of Claim 9.
Regarding Claim 12, the claimed melt index, density, molecular weight distribution, CEF, and LT are addressed above and incorporated herein. Zhou further teaches:
a polyethylene copolymer polymerization process comprising a catalyst composition [Claim 14], corresponding to wherein polyethylene is polymerized in the presence of a catalyst composition of Claim 12;
a porous supported catalyst precursor impregnated with magnesium and titanium, wherein the catalyst precursor is used to prepare the polyethylene [¶ 0043, 0048] and the catalyst precursor is an inorganic oxide support [¶ 0055], corresponding to the intermediate composition derived from a support and an oxygen source of Claim 12, and wherein the titanium corresponds with the transition metal of Claim 12;
an activator compound used the titanium based catalyst precursor, wherein the activator compound has the formula, AlRaXbHc, wherein X is chlorine, bromine, or iodine; each R a saturated aliphatic hydrocarbon radical having 1 to 14 carbon atoms; b is 0 to 1.5; c is 0 or 1; and a+b+c=3 [¶ 0052], corresponding to the organoaluminum compound of the intermediate composition of Claim 12; and
a hydrocarbyl aluminum cocatalyst of the formula R2AlX, wherein R represents a hydrocarbyl with 1 to 20 carbon atoms, and wherein X represents a halogen [¶ 0053], corresponding to R22AlY of Claim 12, which reads on the hydrocarbyl group having 1 to 20 carbon atoms of Claim 12, and which reads on the halide radical of Claim 12.
However, Zhou does not explicitly teach the transition metal component is separate to the intermediate composition of Claim 12.
Nevertheless, “where the products produced by the reference process are neither transitory nor ephemeral but are by nature tangible and permanent pending the subsequent treatment to which they are subjected, held that such products, though intermediate, in the reference, are anticipatory of the product defined by the claims on appeal.” See MPEP section 2144.04IIB. Since Zhou teaches the combination of the catalyst precursor with titanium, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, that the titanium prior to the addition of the titanium to the catalyst precursor, would thereby read on the transition metal compound separate from the intermediate compound.
Regarding Claims 13, 16-18, and 21, Zhou further teaches:
a metallocene catalyst system comprising chromium [¶ 0043], wherein the transition metal comprises a metallocene component of Claim 13;
density ranges from about 0.915 to 0.935 g/cm3 [¶ 0031], which overlaps with a density from 0.905 to 0.925 g/cc of Claim 16;
a melt index ranging from about 0.0001 to about 1.0 gram per 10 minutes, wherein the melt index measurements are performed according to ASTM D-1238 [¶ 0029, 0082], which overlaps with a melt index from about 0.5 to about 5 g/10min as determined by ASTM D1238 under 2.16 kg and at 190˚C of Claim 17;
1-hexene [Example 1; ¶ 0104, 0113; Claim 5], corresponding to the hexene of Claim 18; and
film comprising the polyethylene [¶ 0074], corresponding to the film of Claim 21.
However, Zhou does not explicitly teach a density from 0.905 to 0.925 g/cc of Claim 16 and a melt index from about 0.5 to about 5 g/10min as determined by ASTM D1238 under 2.16 kg and at 190˚C of Claim 17.
Nevertheless, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the ranges taught by Zhou for the density (from about 0.915 to 0.935 g/cm3) and melt index (from about 0.0001 to about 1.0 gram per 10 minutes), overlaps the instantly claimed density ranges (from 0.905 to 0.925 g/cc of Claim 16) and melt index ranges (from about 0.5 to about 5 g/10min of Claim 17)and is therefore considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP section 2144.05.
Regarding Claims 15 and 19, however, Zhou does not explicitly teach a cumulative fraction difference (S-C) between M-SSA and CEF of Claim 15, nor a lamellar thickness (LT) of Claim 19.
The properties of polyethylene, such as the S-C1 of Claim 15, and LT2 of Claim 19, are functions of the composition of the polyethylene and the method by which it is made. Zhou teaches polymerization of the HMW polyethylene copolymer by gas phase polymerization using a continuous fluidized bed process by [¶ 0059], similar to the continuous fluidized gas phase polymerization process to produce the claimed polyethylene disclosed in the instant Specification [¶ 0117-0118]. Since Zhou teaches the same polyethylene formed by the same method as applicants, the polyethylene of Zhou would be expected to result in the same LT and S-C as required by the instant claims. Case law has held that claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is expectedly present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. The courts have stated that a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. "Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established." See MPEP section 2112.01.
Regarding Claim 22, Zhou further teaches pellets comprising the polyethylene [¶ 0074], corresponding to the pellet of Claim 22. Zhou is silent to zirconium which will be interpreted to include no zirconium, thereby corresponding to Zr in an amount less than 0.50 ppm of Claim 22.
Regarding Claims 25-26, Zhou further teaches:
production of the polyethylene in a single reactor [¶ 0056, 0070], corresponding to wherein the polyethylene is produced in a single reactor of Claim 25; and
single catalysts capable of making a composition having a LMW component and a HMW component [¶ 0014], corresponding to wherein the polyethylene is produced using a single catalyst species of Claim 26.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (US 2006/0041073 A1; cited in the IDS submitted on 11/10/2023; hereafter as “Zhou”) as applied to Claims 1-6, 8-9, 12-13, 15-19, 21-22, 25-26 above, and further in view of Luo et al. (US 9,090,720 B2; cited in the IDS submitted on 05/14/2025; hereafter as “Luo”).
Zhou teaches the ethylene monomer, α-olefin monomer, melt index, density, molecular weight distribution, crystallization elution fractionation, and lamellar thickness of Claims 1 and 12 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Zhou further teaches metallocene transition metal components [Column 14, Lines 8-12].
However, Zhou does not teach the wherein the metallocene component comprises bis(1-butyl-3-methylcyclopentadienyl) zirconium dichloride of Claim 14.
Regarding the bis(1-butyl-3-methylcyclopentadienyl) zirconium dichloride of Claim 14, Luo teaches aluminoxate catalyst activators for polyolefin catalysts comprising an organoaluminum compound, hydrocarbyl group, transition metal [Abstract], for copolymerization of ethylene and hexene [Column 15, Line 61 – Column 16, Line 9]. Luo further teaches catalyst precursors including bis(1-butyl-3-methylcyclopentadienyl) zirconium dichloride [Column 15, Lines 57-58; Examples 5-6], corresponding to wherein the metallocene component comprises bis(1-butyl-3-methylcyclopentadienyl)zirconium dichloride of Claim 14.
Luo offers the motivation that the catalyst activator allows polymerization times from about 1-20 minutes and may be adjusted to control the molecular weight of the olefin polymer [Column 16, Lines 10-32].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the bis(1-butyl-3-methylcyclopentadienyl)zirconium dichloride of Luo with the polyethylene of Zhou, with the motivation to quickly polymerize polyethylene while controlling the molecular weight distribution, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DORIS LING whose telephone number is (571)270-3961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, ARRIE LANEE REUTHER can be reached on (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.
/DORIS LING/Examiner, Art Unit 1764
/HANNAH J PAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
1 SSA is a measure of polymer chain crystalline structure [Perez-Camargo et al.; Abstract, Introduction].
2 The lamellar thickness is a measure of crystal thickness in polyethylene during crystallization [Section: Crosslinking of UHMWPE for Wear Resistance: 2nd Generation].
Prosecution Insights