DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
This action is responsive to national-stage application filed 11/30/2023. Following entry of the concurrently filed preliminary amendment, amended claims 1-14 and new claim 16 are currently pending and under examination herein.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement(s)
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) accompanying the application papers is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609, and therefore the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits. Initialed copies of the IDS are included with the mailing/transmittal of this Office action.
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Search Report
This application was accompanied by a Search Report wherein the following documents were cited as particularly relevant (“X” category): (I) WO 2019/099589 A1 (Crowther; citing Table 4, Reaction# CE2-A and Figure 4); (II) US 2019/0168203 A1 (Holtcamp; citing Table 2, Run 2 and Figure 4) and (III) WO 2014/074622 A1 (McDaniel; citing Table III, Example 11 and Figure 4). The particular relevance of McDaniel is discussed infra. As to documents (I) and (II), examiner finds that it is not unequivocally clear from review of the cited examples and figures that the quantity of SCB at Mw=500,000 g/mol and the quantity SCB at Mw=10,000 g/mol are such as to necessarily equate to a SCBR of > 1.40, as claimed, for the ethylene copolymer of either Reaction# CE2-A or Run 2, and neither document is otherwise found to provide sufficient information to establish whether or not the claimed SCBR value would be inherent to any of the ethylene copolymers disclosed by Crowther or Holtcamp.
Further as to claim 10, it is noted that Crowther mentions dimethylsilyl-(3-phenyl-indenyl)(tetramethylcyclopentadienyl)ZrCl2 in an extensive list of potential olefin polymerization catalysts spanning paragraphs [0065]-[0068]. Besides providing no guidance or direction to select this particular metallocene from among the myriad enumerated choices, the compound is not in fact a species under claimed formula (I), but rather the 3-phenyl-indenyl position isomer of the recited compound where R1 in formula (I) is C6 aryl. Crowther provides no significant motivation to first select dimethylsilyl-(3-phenyl-indenyl)(tetramethylcyclopentadienyl)ZrCl2 then create the corresponding 2-phenyl-indenyl isomer and finally utilize the resulting compound in the production of an ethylene-α-olefin copolymer as per the claimed process.
Accordingly, neither of said documents (I) – (II) is being applied in any rejection herein.
Common Ownership Notice
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim Rejection – 35 U.S.C. 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2014/074622 A1 (‘McDaniel’) in view of Lief et al (US 2012/0146661 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 3 and 4: reference to McDaniel concretely discloses an ethylene-1-hexene copolymer [α-olefin species of claim 3] having a molecular weight distribution Mw/Mn of 10.3, a SCB content of > 15/1000C and a density of 0.9189 [= 918.9 kg/m3, per claim 4]; see page 99, Table III, Example 11 and FIG. 4 (plot of MWD-SCB distribution). Given the correspondence in density and the well-established inverse relation of comonomer content to density of ethylene copolymer, it is plausible to infer the quantity of 1-hexene-derived polymer moieties is ≥1.0 and ≤ 20 wt%, with regard to the total weight of said copolymer, as claimed. Example 11 further reports a reverse SCBD, which McDaniel describes as meaning an increasing comonomer incorporation with increasing molecular weight such that the ratio of the number of SCB/1000 total carbon atoms of the higher molecular weight component to the number of SCB/1000 total carbon atoms of the lower molecular weight component that can be greater than about 1.1:1 , and in some aspects, greater than about 1.5:1, or in a range from about 1.5:1 to about 6:1 (see page 81, lines 12-16).
McDaniel arguably differs from the claimed subject matter only in that the MWD-SCBD plot depicted in FIG. 4 does not clearly show a SCBR of > 1.40. However, in the same technical field, Lief et al. disclose ethylene-based polymers, and more particularly, polymers that have a large majority of their short chain branch content concentrated in the high molecular weight fraction of the polymer and that incorporation of comonomer short chain branches (SCBs) into polyethylene copolymers can be useful in tailoring the properties of the polymer. For instance, varying the SCBs can reduce polymer crystallinity and improve impact strength, but also can decrease polymer stiffness and polymer density. Lief et al. further teach that varying the SCB content can result in improved polymer properties, such as stress crack resistance and slow crack growth resistance. Generally, the polymers taught by Lief et al. are ethylene-based polymers, or ethylene polymers, encompassing homopolymers of ethylene as well as copolymers of ethylene and at least one olefin comonomer. Comonomers that can be copolymerized with ethylene typically can have from 3 to 20 carbon atoms in their molecular chain; e.g., propylene, 1-butene, 1-pentene, 1-hexene, 1-heptene, 1-octene, and the like, or combinations thereof. (See Abs., and ¶¶ [0003], [0034], and [0035.])
Given the teachings of Lief et al., it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the short chain branching ratio (SCBR) of the aforementioned ethylene copolymer of McDaniel, inasmuch as Lief et al. specifically teach that the incorporation of comonomer short chain branches (SCBs) into polyethylene copolymers can be useful in customizing the properties of the polymer, such as polymer stiffness, stress crack resistance, and slow crack growth resistance. Routine optimization of an art-recognized, result-effective parameter is prima facie obvious; see MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding Claim 2: McDaniel in view of Lief et al renders obvious the ethylene-α-olefin copolymer according to claim 1 as discussed above. McDaniel in Example 11 further reports that the ethylene-1-hexene copolymer has a molecular weight ratio Mz/Mw of ≥ 3.0, namely 3.6 (see Table III).
Regarding Claims 5 and 6: McDaniel in view of Lief et al renders obvious the ethylene-α-olefin copolymer according to claim 1 as discussed above. McDaniel in Example 11 further reports a Melt Index (MI) of 0.14 and a HLMI of 69. Given that the MI and HLMI were determined in accordance with the same ASTM standard as claimed, including the same testing temperature and load weight (see page 83, lines 14-16), the reported parameters are considered equivalent to the recited parameters of melt mass-flow rate.
Regarding Claims 9 and 16: McDaniel in view of Lief et al renders obvious the ethylene-α-olefin copolymer according to claim 1 as discussed above. McDaniel in Tables V-VII further describes films comprising the ethylene-1-hexene copolymer of Example 11 (as well as Examples 8-10 and 12-13; see pages 101-103). As such, it would have been further obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to make an article according to claim 9 or 16 comprising the ethylene-α-olefin copolymer of McDaniel as optimally modified as per Lief et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 and 10-14 are objected to as being dependent on a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim.
The closest prior art to McDaniel and Lief et al, discussed above, does not describe the inventions of instant claims 7-8 and 10-14, especially recited elution fractionation parameters or production of an ethylene-α-olefin copolymer in presence of a catalyst system comprising a compound according to recited formula (I), or provide proper rationale to modify either of their respective inventions into the invention of claim 7, 8 or 10 (upon which claims 11-14 depend).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Examiner F. M. Teskin whose telephone number is (571) 272-1116. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Robert Jones, can be reached at (571) 270-7733. The appropriate 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, 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.
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/FRED M TESKIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
/FMTeskin/08-06-26
Prosecution Insights