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 § 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.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mavridis et al. (US 2014/0243475).
Considering Claims 1, 2, and 5: Mavridis et al. teaches a polyethylene copolymer composition having a density of 0.950 g/cm3 or 0.970 g/cm3 (¶0017); a ratio of MIF/MIP of from 17 to 25 (¶0018); a MIF of from 20 to 45 g/10 min (¶0047); a LCBI of from 0.50 to about 0.70 (¶0059) and a complex viscosity at 0.02 of 31,000 to 43,000 (¶0021). Based on the ranges of the LCBI and complex viscosity, the ratio of 5) would be from about 44.3 to 86, which encompasses the claimed ratio.
The composition of Mavridis et al. encompasses or overlaps with the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have selected values for the parameters within the overlapping portions of the ranges disclosed in Mavridis et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, to control the blow molding properties of the polyethylene copolymer.
Considering Claim 3: Mavridis et al. teaches preparing the polyethylene with a Ziegler Natta catalyst (¶0005-0008).
Considering Claim 4: Mavridis et al. teaches the Ziegler Natta catalyst as comprising the reaction product of a solid catalyst component comprising a Ti compound supported on MgCl2, an organoaluminum compound and optionally an electron donor compound (¶0071-74).
Considering Claims 8 and 9: Mavridis et al. teaches blow molded articles made from the composition (¶0064).
Considering Claim 10: Mavridis et al. teaches a process for preparing the composition comprising polymerization steps carried out in the prescene of a Ziegler Natta catalyst supported on MgCl2 (¶0070).
Considering Claim 11: Mavridis et al. teaches polymerizing ethylene in a gas-phase reactor in the prescence of hydrogen; and copolymerizing ethylene with one or more comonomers in a second gas phase reactor in the presence of hydrogen (¶0005-08), where the hydrogen content in the second reactor is less than the first reactor (¶0008), wherein the polymerizing ethylene flows upward through a first polymerization zone; leaves said the first polymerization zone and enters a second polymerization zone through which the polymerizing ethylene polymer flows downward under the action of gravity; leaves said second polymerization zone; and is reintroduced into the first polymerization zone, thus establishing a circulation of the polymerizing ethylene polymer between said first and second polymerization zones in at least one of said first and second gas-phase reactors (¶0008).
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doetsch et al. (US 2019/0284378).
Considering Claim 1: Doetsch et al. teaches a polyethylene composition having a density of 0.957 to 0.965 g/cm3; a ratio of MIF/MIP or 12 to 25; and MIF of 18 to 40 g/10 min; a long chain branching index of greater than 0.55 and a ratio of η0.02/LCBI of 55 to 75 (¶0004-10).
Doetsch et al. teaches an MIF that is close to the claimed range of 41 to 60 g/10 min. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP § 2144.05. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have increase the MIF of the polyethylene of Doetsch et al., and the motivation to do so would have been to increase the flowability during molding of the composition.
Considering Claim 2: Doetsch et al. teaches the polyethylene as comprising a polyethylene copolymer (¶0015).
Considering Claims 3 and 4: Doetsch et al. teaches the polyethylene as being made with a Ziegler Natta catalyst comprising the reaction product of a solid catalyst component comprising a Ti compound supported on MgCl2, an organoaluminum compound and optionally an electron donor compound (¶0052-55).
Considering Claim 5: Doetsch et al. teaches the composition as having a Mw of greater than 230,000 g/mol (¶0007).
Considering Claim 6: Doetsch et al. teaches the composition as comprising 30 to 70 weight percent of a ethylene homopolymer or copolymer with a density equal to or greater than 0.960 g/cm3 and MIE of 50 to 150 g/10 min (¶0033) and a second copolymer having a lower MIE value that the MIE value lower (¶0034).
Considering Claim 7: Doetsch et al. teaches a difference between the density of A and the entire composition of 11.1 kg/m3 (Table 1).
Considering Claim 8 and 9: Doetsch et al. teaches forming a blow molded article from the composition (¶0041).
Considering Claim 10: Doetsch et al. teaches a process for preparing the composition comprising polymerization steps carried out in the prescene of a Ziegler Natta catalyst supported on MgCl2 (¶0052-55).
Considering Claim 11: Mavridis et al. teaches polymerizing ethylene in a gas-phase reactor in the prescence of hydrogen; and copolymerizing ethylene with one or more comonomers in a second gas phase reactor in the presence of hydrogen (¶0078-80), where the hydrogen content in the second reactor is less than the first reactor (¶0080), wherein the polymerizing ethylene flows upward through a first polymerization zone; leaves said the first polymerization zone and enters a second polymerization zone through which the polymerizing ethylene polymer flows downward under the action of gravity; leaves said second polymerization zone; and is reintroduced into the first polymerization zone, thus establishing a circulation of the polymerizing ethylene polymer between said first and second polymerization zones in at least one of said first and second gas-phase reactors (¶0080).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIAM J HEINCER whose telephone number is (571)270-3297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/LIAM J HEINCER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights