DETAILED ACTION
Pending Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 Interpretation
The claimed invention is drawn to: (1-8 & 18) a multi-block copolymer, (9-13) a method for preparing the multi-block copolymer, and (14-17 & 19-20) a thermoplastic resin composition comprising polypropylene and the multi-block copolymer. The multi-block copolymer comprises:
a polystyrene-based block comprising a repeating unit derived from an aromatic vinyl-based monomer, and
a polyolefin-based block comprising a repeating unit derived from ethylene and a repeating unit derived from an alpha-olefin-based monomer,
wherein the multiblock copolymer has the following properties:
(1) a liquid-like ordering phase having a domain size (R) of 15.0 nm to 22.0 nm and a distance between domains (D1) of 40.0 nm to 60.0 nm, and
(2) a lamellar phase having a domain size (T) of 2.0 nm to 9.0 nm and a distance between domains (D2) of 10.0 nm to 50.0 nm,
where the domain size and the distance between domains are measured by small angle X-ray scattering.
The exemplary embodiments of the instant specification provide guidance for achieving this set of phase properties (see Tables 1-2). These multi-block copolymers are prepared by a method comprising:
(S1) a step of reacting ethylene and an alpha-olefin-based monomer using an organozinc compound as a chain transfer agent in the presence of a catalyst composition comprising a transition metal compound to prepare a polyolefin-based block; and
(S2) a step of reacting an aromatic vinyl-based monomer and the polyolefin-based block in the presence of an anionic polymerization initiator to prepare the multi-block copolymer.
Specifically, step (S1) is performed using an organozinc compound of formula [5], a transition metal compound of formula [1], and an alkylaluminoxane of formula [9], which acts as both a co-catalyst and a scavenger:
PNG
media_image1.png
92
336
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(see claim 11 for variable limitations);
PNG
media_image2.png
244
288
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(see claim 10 for variable details); and
– [Al(Ra) – O]m – [Formula 9],
where each Ra is independently a halogen radical; a hydrocarbyl radical of 1 to 20 carbon atoms; or a halogen substituted hydrocarbyl radical of 1 to 20 carbon atoms; and m is an integer of 2 or more. Step (S2) is performed using an anion polymerization initiator of formula [11]:
PNG
media_image3.png
84
252
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(see claim 13 for variable details).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-13 and 18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of copending Application No. 18/683,590 (US 2025/0136742 A1) in view of Im et al. (WO 2021/210953 A1). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection where the instant application and the copending application have the same effective filing date of September 30, 2022 – see MPEP 804 I,B,1(b)(ii).
Note: all citations of Im et al. are directed to the equivalent US publication (US 2023/0116142 A1).
Regarding claim 13, copending claim 14 (which is dependent from copending claims 13, 8 & 1) discloses: (13) a method comprising: (S1) a step of reacting ethylene and an alpha-olefin-based monomer using an organozinc compound as a chain transfer agent in the presence of a catalyst composition comprising a transition metal compound to prepare a polyolefin-based block (see copending claims 14, 13 & 8); and (S2) a step of reacting an aromatic vinyl-based monomer and the polyolefin-based block in the presence of an anionic polymerization initiator to prepare the multi-block copolymer (see copending claims 14, 13 & 8); wherein step (S2) is performed using an anion polymerization initiator of formula [11]:
PNG
media_image3.png
84
252
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(see copending claim 14). The copending claim fails to explicitly disclose the use of an organozinc compound of formula [5], a transition metal compound of formula [1], and an alkylaluminoxane of formula [9] in step (S1).
Im et al. disclose a similar multi-block copolymer and method of making with steps (S1) and (S2) (see Abstract; paragraphs 0041-0112). They demonstrate that a combination of an organozinc compound of formula [5] (see paragraphs 0071-0080), a transition metal compound of formula [1] (see paragraphs 0043-0070), and an alkylaluminoxane of formula [9] (see paragraphs 0081-0089) is recognized in the art as a suitable reaction environment for performing step (S1). In light of this, it has been found that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination – see MPEP 2144.07.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform step (S1) of copending claim 14 in the presence of {an organozinc compound of formula [5], a transition metal compound of formula [1], and an alkylaluminoxane of formula [9]} because: (a) Im et al. disclose a similar multi-block copolymer and method of making with steps (S1) and (S2); (b) Im et al. demonstrate that a combination of an organozinc compound of formula [5], a transition metal compound of formula [1], and an alkylaluminoxane of formula [9] is recognized in the art as a suitable reaction environment for performing step (S1); and (c) it has been found that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination.
Regarding claims 9-12, the combined teachings of the copending claim and Im et al. are as set forth above and incorporated herein to obviously satisfy the method of claims (9-12).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 5-8, and 18, the combined teachings of the copending claim and Im et al. are as set forth above and incorporated herein to obviously satisfy the multi-block copolymer of claims (1, 2, 5-8 & 18). This multi-block copolymer would have been an obvious result of the method.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, the combined teachings of the copending claim and Im et al. are as set forth above and incorporated herein. Im et al. demonstrate that the instantly claimed alpha-olefin monomer is recognized in the art as a suitable alpha-olefin monomer for this type of method and multi-block copolymer (see paragraph 0095). In light of this, it has been found that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination – see MPEP 2144.07.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the instantly claimed alpha-olefin monomer in the method resulting from the combined teachings of {the copending claim and Im et al.} because: (a) Im et al. demonstrate that the instantly claimed alpha-olefin monomer is recognized in the art as a suitable alpha-olefin monomer for this type of method and multi-block copolymer; and (b) it has been found that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination.
Claims 1-13 and 18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of copending Application No. 18/683,926 (US 2024/0352176 A1) in view of Im et al. (WO 2021/210953 A1). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection where the instant application and the copending application have the same effective filing date of September 30, 2022 – see MPEP 804 I,B,1(b)(ii).
Note: all citations of Im et al. are directed to the equivalent US publication (US 2023/0116142 A1).
Regarding claim 13, copending claim 13 (which is dependent from copending claims 12, 9 & 1) discloses: (13) a method comprising: (S1) a step of reacting ethylene and an alpha-olefin-based monomer using an organozinc compound as a chain transfer agent in the presence of a catalyst composition comprising a transition metal compound to prepare a polyolefin-based block (see copending claims 13, 12 & 9); and (S2) a step of reacting an aromatic vinyl-based monomer and the polyolefin-based block in the presence of an anionic polymerization initiator to prepare the multi-block copolymer (see copending claims 13, 12 & 9); wherein step (S2) is performed using an anion polymerization initiator of formula [11]:
PNG
media_image3.png
84
252
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(see copending claim 13). The copending claim fails to explicitly disclose the use of an organozinc compound of formula [5], a transition metal compound of formula [1], and an alkylaluminoxane of formula [9] in step (S1).
Im et al. disclose a similar multi-block copolymer and method of making with steps (S1) and (S2) (see Abstract; paragraphs 0041-0112). They demonstrate that a combination of an organozinc compound of formula [5] (see paragraphs 0071-0080), a transition metal compound of formula [1] (see paragraphs 0043-0070), and an alkylaluminoxane of formula [9] (see paragraphs 0081-0089) is recognized in the art as a suitable reaction environment for performing step (S1). In light of this, it has been found that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination – see MPEP 2144.07.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform step (S1) of copending claim 13 in the presence of {an organozinc compound of formula [5], a transition metal compound of formula [1], and an alkylaluminoxane of formula [9]} because: (a) Im et al. disclose a similar multi-block copolymer and method of making with steps (S1) and (S2); (b) Im et al. demonstrate that a combination of an organozinc compound of formula [5], a transition metal compound of formula [1], and an alkylaluminoxane of formula [9] is recognized in the art as a suitable reaction environment for performing step (S1); and (c) it has been found that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination.
Regarding claims 9-12, the combined teachings of the copending claim and Im et al. are as set forth above and incorporated herein to obviously satisfy the method of claims (9-12).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 5-8, and 18, the combined teachings of the copending claim and Im et al. are as set forth above and incorporated herein to obviously satisfy the multi-block copolymer of claims (1, 2, 5-8 & 18). This multi-block copolymer would have been an obvious result of the method.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, the combined teachings of the copending claim and Im et al. are as set forth above and incorporated herein. Im et al. demonstrate that the instantly claimed alpha-olefin monomer is recognized in the art as a suitable alpha-olefin monomer for this type of method and multi-block copolymer (see paragraph 0095). In light of this, it has been found that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination – see MPEP 2144.07.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the instantly claimed alpha-olefin monomer in the method resulting from the combined teachings of {the copending claim and Im et al.} because: (a) Im et al. demonstrate that the instantly claimed alpha-olefin monomer is recognized in the art as a suitable alpha-olefin monomer for this type of method and multi-block copolymer; and (b) it has been found that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination.
Claims 1-13 and 18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of copending Application No. 18/684,924 (US 2024/0360266 A1) in view of Im et al. (WO 2021/210953 A1). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection where the instant application and the copending application have the same effective filing date of September 30, 2022 – see MPEP 804 I,B,1(b)(ii).
Note: all citations of Im et al. are directed to the equivalent US publication (US 2023/0116142 A1).
Regarding claim 13, copending claim 14 (which is dependent from copending claims 13, 7 & 1) discloses: (13) a method comprising: (S1) a step of reacting ethylene and an alpha-olefin-based monomer using an organozinc compound as a chain transfer agent in the presence of a catalyst composition comprising a transition metal compound to prepare a polyolefin-based block (see copending claims 14, 13 & 7); and (S2) a step of reacting an aromatic vinyl-based monomer and the polyolefin-based block in the presence of an anionic polymerization initiator to prepare the multi-block copolymer (see copending claims 14, 13 & 7); wherein step (S2) is performed using an anion polymerization initiator of formula [11]:
PNG
media_image3.png
84
252
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(see copending claim 14). The copending claim fails to explicitly disclose the use of an organozinc compound of formula [5], a transition metal compound of formula [1], and an alkylaluminoxane of formula [9] in step (S1).
Im et al. disclose a similar multi-block copolymer and method of making with steps (S1) and (S2) (see Abstract; paragraphs 0041-0112). They demonstrate that a combination of an organozinc compound of formula [5] (see paragraphs 0071-0080), a transition metal compound of formula [1] (see paragraphs 0043-0070), and an alkylaluminoxane of formula [9] (see paragraphs 0081-0089) is recognized in the art as a suitable reaction environment for performing step (S1). In light of this, it has been found that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination – see MPEP 2144.07.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform step (S1) of copending claim 14 in the presence of {an organozinc compound of formula [5], a transition metal compound of formula [1], and an alkylaluminoxane of formula [9]} because: (a) Im et al. disclose a similar multi-block copolymer and method of making with steps (S1) and (S2); (b) Im et al. demonstrate that a combination of an organozinc compound of formula [5], a transition metal compound of formula [1], and an alkylaluminoxane of formula [9] is recognized in the art as a suitable reaction environment for performing step (S1); and (c) it has been found that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination.
Regarding claims 9-12, the combined teachings of the copending claim and Im et al. are as set forth above and incorporated herein to obviously satisfy the method of claims (9-12).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 5-8, and 18, the combined teachings of the copending claim and Im et al. are as set forth above and incorporated herein to obviously satisfy the multi-block copolymer of claims (1, 2, 5-8 & 18). This multi-block copolymer would have been an obvious result of the method.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, the combined teachings of the copending claim and Im et al. are as set forth above and incorporated herein. Im et al. demonstrate that the instantly claimed alpha-olefin monomer is recognized in the art as a suitable alpha-olefin monomer for this type of method and multi-block copolymer (see paragraph 0095). In light of this, it has been found that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination – see MPEP 2144.07.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the instantly claimed alpha-olefin monomer in the method resulting from the combined teachings of {the copending claim and Im et al.} because: (a) Im et al. demonstrate that the instantly claimed alpha-olefin monomer is recognized in the art as a suitable alpha-olefin monomer for this type of method and multi-block copolymer; and (b) it has been found that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination.
Allowable Subject Matter
Aside from the non-statutory double patenting rejections, claims 1-13 and 18 would be allowable.
Claims 14-17, 19, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Im et al. (WO 2021/210953 A1) represents the closest prior art (see equivalent US 2023/0116142 A1 for citations).
Im et al. disclose a similar multi-block copolymer and method of making with steps (S1) and (S2) (see Abstract; paragraphs 0041-0112). They perform step (S1) in the presence of an organozinc compound of formula [5] (see paragraphs 0071-0080), a transition metal compound of formula [1] (see paragraphs 0043-0070), and an alkylaluminoxane of formula [9] (see paragraphs 0081-0089). They perform step (S2) in the presence of an alkyllithium compound including silicon and a triamine compound (see paragraphs 0101-0112). However, Applicant’s comparative example 4 (see Tables 1-2) suggests that the use of this anionic initiator would not result in the instantly claimed set of phase properties:
(1) a liquid-like ordering phase having a domain size (R) of 15.0 nm to 22.0 nm and a distance between domains (D1) of 40.0 nm to 60.0 nm, and
(2) a lamellar phase having a domain size (T) of 2.0 nm to 9.0 nm and a distance between domains (D2) of 10.0 nm to 50.0 nm.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J FEELY whose telephone number is (571)272-1086. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at (571)272-1302. 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.
/MICHAEL J FEELY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
June 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights