DETAILED 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.
All outstanding objections and rejections made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
The new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant’s amendment filed on 9/17/26. In particular, claim 1 has been amended to further limit the catalyst to a single site catalyst, the transfer of the components to the second step, inter alia.
The newly introduced limitations and/or the new claims were not present at the time of the preceding action. For this reason, the present action is properly made final.
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 § 102
Claim(s) 1, 3-7 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2019/081611 (herein Jamieson).
As to claims 1 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 the new limitation, the examples make it clear that the polymer is transferred to a second reactor. See page 37. It is also clear that the catalyst is transferred given that no additional catalyst is added. Moreover, Jamieson states “the polymer was introduced into a fluidized bed gas phase reactor, where also additional ethylene, 1-butene and 1-hexene and hydrogen were added.” See page 37. There is no mention of delay and the reactor was operated at a pressure of 20 bar (page 38), demonstrating that the additional pressure is from the added gases (ethylene, hydrogen, etc.). Given that Jamieson teaches no induction step or delay when adding the polymer, it is clear that all components are added at the same time, thus ethylene and 1-hexene are fed at the beginning of the polymerization, therefore reading on the new claim limitation. Moreover, Jamieison specifically states:
“From the flash tank the polymer was introduced into a fluidized bed gas phase reactor, where also additional ethylene, 1 -butene and 1-hexene comonomer and hydrogen were added, together with nitrogen as an inert gas”
Therefore, the reading is that polymer (and catalyst) are added to a reactor where ethylene and 1-hexene are added. Thus, they are added at the start of the polymerization step as claimed.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the new claim limitations overcome the prior art rejections.
In response, the examiner disagrees. Note that only Jamieson is carried over from the previous office action. Specifically, As to the new limitation, the examples of Jamieson make it clear that the polymer is transferred to a second reactor. See page 37. It is also clear that the catalyst is transferred given that no additional catalyst is added. Moreover, Jamieson states “the polymer was introduced into a fluidized bed gas phase reactor, where also additional ethylene, 1-butene and 1-hexene and hydrogen were added.” See page 37. There is no mention of delay and the reactor was operated at a pressure of 20 bar, demonstrating that the additional pressure is from the added gases (ethylene, hydrogen, etc.). Given that Jamieson teaches no induction step or delay when adding the polymer, it is clear that all components are added at the same time, thus ethylene and 1-hexene are fed at the beginning of the polymerization, therefore reading on the new claim limitation.
Applicant argues that Jamieson does not report adding 1-hexene at start up.
In response, the examiner disagrees. Jamieison specifically states:
“From the flash tank the polymer was introduced into a fluidized bed gas phase reactor, where also additional ethylene, 1 -butene and 1-hexene comonomer and hydrogen were added, together with nitrogen as an inert gas”
Therefore, the reading is that polymer (and catalyst) are added to a reactor where ethylene and 1-hexene are added. Thus, they are added at the start of the polymerization step as claimed.
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 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