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 .
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 1-7 and 9-15 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.
Claims 1, 9 and 12, which all dependent claims depend upon, recite that the ethylene and 1-hexene are feed into the gas phase polymerization step from the beginning of its start up. What start up? The possessive pronoun “its” can be interpreted in several ways: 1) the start up of the polymerization of the second polymerization step, 2) the start up of the first polymerization, 3) the start up of any polymerization, etc. Moreover, it is unclear what is meant by start up: the start of the polymerization (e.g. before it is heated and the polymerization takes place), at the moment when all reactants/catalysts are added, etc. The specification gives no guidance on what is meant by start up.
For examination purposes, the limitation will be treated as added prior to initiation/starting the polymerization.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the multimodal polyethylene polymer" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While the process may produce polyethylene polymers, which may have different molecular weights (multimodal), it is unclear whether the limitation is referring to this implied narrower interpretation, or some other additional component.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed recitation of a use, without setting forth any steps involved in the process, results in an improper definition of a process, i.e., results in a claim which is not a proper process claim under 35 U.S.C. 101. See for example Ex parte Dunki, 153 USPQ 678 (Bd.App. 1967) and Clinical Products, Ltd. v. Brenner, 255 F. Supp. 131, 149 USPQ 475 (D.D.C. 1966). Specifically, as outlined in MPEP 2106.03, a process is a series of steps or actions. However, claim 8 does not require any explicit steps.
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, 12-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2004/0186250 (herein Kinnan).
As to claim 1, Kinnan discloses a method for polymerizing in a multistep polymerization process in the presence of a catalyst (first catalyst, see paragraph 11-14) the first polymerization takes place in the presence of ethylene and an alpha olefin comonomer (1-hexene, paragraph 19). A second polymerization step occurs in the presence of ethylene and 1-hexene in the presence of the previous polymer with a second catalyst system (paragraph 11-17) to form a second polymer. The reaction produces a bimodal (multimodal) polyethylene polymer (paragraph 104, 114, and 132-134). The polymer produced comprises 1-hexene (paragraph 117 and 19) and may comprise further such as butene (C4 comonomer). The reaction is performed in a gas reactor (gas phase). See paragraph 12-14. Specifically, note the examples, wherein ethylene and 1-hexne are fed into the reactors at the start up prior to the addition of catalyst.
As to claims 8-9 and 12, Kinnan discloses a method for polymerizing in a multistep polymerization process in the presence of a catalyst (first catalyst, see paragraph 11-14) the first polymerization takes place in the presence of ethylene and an alpha olefin comonomer (1-hexene, paragraph 19). A second polymerization step occurs in the presence of ethylene and 1-hexene in the presence of the previous polymer with a second catalyst system (paragraph 11-17) to form a second polymer. The reaction produces a bimodal (multimodal) polyethylene polymer (paragraph 104, 114, and 132-134). The second catalyst is a metallocene (single site) catalyst (paragraph 56-59). The reaction is performed in a gas reactor. See paragraph 12-14. Specifically, note the examples, wherein ethylene and 1-hexene are fed into the reactors at the start up prior to the addition of catalyst. While Kinnan is silent on improving performance, adding monomers at the start up would necessarily lead to some improvement and therefore read on the claim limitation.
As to claim 2, the catalyst is a metallocene (single site) catalyst. See paragraph 41 and 56).
As to claims 3 and 15, the polymerization catalyst comprises a transition metal complex (paragraph 79, 83, 92 and examples), a cocatalyst (paragraph 25, 29 and 15) and optionally support (paragraph 29 and 35-39).
As to claims 4, 10 and 13, the molar ratio of hexene/ethylene is 0.012 in example 1, which translates to 12 mol/kmol and within the claimed range. Also note that all examples are within the claimed range.
As to claim 5, the gas phase polymerization is taught as 30 to 120 oC (paragraph 124) and exemplified at 95 oC.
As to claim 6, the gas phase polymerization is at a pressure of 100 psig to 500 psig )see paragraph 123, also see examples), which is about 7 bar to 35 bar.
As to claim 7, the reaction was run for about an hour. See examples.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2019/081611 (herein Jamieson).
As to claims 1-2, 8-9 and 12, Jamieson discloses a method for polymerizing in a multistep polymerization process in the presence of a catalyst, wherein the first polymerization (loop reactor) takes place in the presence of ethylene. See examples. A second polymerization (gas phase reactor, GPR) step occurs in the presence of ethylene, 1-butene and 1-hexene in the presence of the previous polymer with a second catalyst system (paragraph 11-17) to form a second polymer. The reaction produces a bimodal (multimodal) polyethylene polymer (paragraph 104, 114, and 132-134). The polymer produced comprises 1-hexene (paragraph 117 and 19) and 1-butene (C4 comonomer). See paragraph 12-14. Specifically, note the examples, wherein ethylene and 1-hexne are fed into the reactors at the start of the reaction. The polymerization utilizes a single site catalyst. See page 15 and examples. As to claims 8 and 12, while Jamieson is silent on improving performance, adding monomers at the start up would necessarily lead to some improvement and therefore read on the claim limitation. Also see page 23 stating that Prepolymerization step at low hexene/ethylene concentrations prior to initiation of the polymerization improves performance. See page 23.
As to claims 3 and 15, the polymerization catalyst comprises a transition metal complex (titanium complex, metallocene complex, also see page 18), a cocatalyst (triethylaluminum) and optionally support (silica). See example 1, etc.
As to claims 4, 10, 11, 13 and 14, the ratio of hexene (C6) to ethylene (c2) was 100 mol/kmol, which correlates to about 300 kg/t, which is within the claimed range. See example 1 and all examples.
As to claims 5-7, the reaction is run at 20 bar (10-25 bar), 80 oC (70 to 110 oC) for 1-8 hours. See examples and page 16.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-9, 12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2002/0132937 (herein Sachs).
As to claims 1-3, 8-9, 12 and 15, Sachs discloses a method of adding ethylene and 1-hexene at the beginning of the start up (see paragraph 285). The reaction produces an at least bimodal (multimodal, see page284) polymer and is multistage (note that a polymer is first produced than introduced into the reaction of example 1). Sachs discloses that the polymers may be ethylene/butene/hexene (paragraph 247), which reads on ethylene, 1-hexene comonomer and C4 comonomer. The catalyst is a metallocene (single site catalyst that comprises a metal complex (paragraph 74-79), cocatalyst (paragraph 211-215) and optionally supports (paragraph 216-224). The reaction of the examples is a gas phase reaction. As to claims 8-9 and 12, while Sachs is silent on improving performance, adding monomers at the start up would necessarily lead to some improvement and therefore read on the claim limitation.
As to claims 5-7, the pressure is 350 psi (24 bar), the reaction temperature is 85 oC and the reaction is 4 hours. See examples.
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 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over US 2004/0186250 (herein Kinnan).
The discussion with respect to Kinnan set-forth above is incorporated herein by reference.
As to claims 11 and 14, Kinnan examples have a molar ratio of about 0.012, which is about 37 kg/ton and just below the claimed range. See examples. However, paragraph 19 discloses that the amount of ethylene and hexene are controlled to give products of desired density and melt index. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to have modified the method of Kinnan with appropriate amounts of hexene and ethylene because one would want to control the density and melt index. See paragraph 19 of Kinnan.
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