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 .
This application is in response a RCE filed on 06/29/2026.
Claims 1-8 and 23-38 are pending and under examination. Applicant has amended claims 1, 4 and cancelled claims 9-22.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/29/2026 has been entered.
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 1-8 and 23-38 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, 3-5, 23, 25-27, 29-31, 33-35 and 37-38 recites “bound alkali metal” and/or “bound sodium” which is still not clear as to what is it bound to and bound can be referred to as bound to anything (i.e., is alkali and/or sodium bound to titanated silica support or bound to titanium or bound to silica or bound to support) by any process (i.e., impregnation, chemically). Given the claim broadest reasonable interpretation in view of specification, examiner interprets bound that can be bound to anything via any process which can include impregnation. Clarification is requested.
Regarding dependent claims 2, 6-8, 24, 28, 32, 36 these claims do not remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 1 noted above and are rejected for the same rationale.
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.
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 1-8 and 23-38 are rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDaniel (US Patent No.: 10,300,460 B1 (‘460)) in view of Witt et al (US Patent No.: 5,444,132).
Regarding Claims 1-7, 24-25, 27-30, 32-33 and 35-38, McDaniel (‘460) teaches a titanated silica support used to polymerize olefins comprising: 0.1 to 20 wt.% of titanium (Col.11 lines 64-67 to Col.12 lines 1-6, Col.19 lines 47-49, reads on claims 1, 24, 28, 32, 36), less than equal to 2 wt.% of carbon (Col.19 lines 19-50, meets claim 1 and 2 limitation), chromium in amount of 0.1 to 5 wt.% (Col.19 lines 45-47, reads on claims 6, 32, 36). Further McDaniel (‘460) discloses at least 75 wt.% of the chromium is present in an oxidation state of three or less (Col.19 lines 35-37, 51-54, reads on claim 7 limitation). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
McDaniel (‘460) does not explicitly disclose or suggest a titanated silica support comprising from 0.5 to 12 wt.% water, a bound alkali metal, wherein the bound alkali metal is that which remains bound to the titanated silica support after three equal wash/filtration cycle totaling 300 lb of wash water per lb of the titanated silica support, on a dry basis, and which is quantified by ICP analysis; wherein a molar ratio of the alkali metal to the titanium is from 0.05:1 to 3:1 and/or at an amount of the bound alkali metal is in a range from 0.04 to 2 mmol of the bound alkali metal per gram of the silica of claim 1.
However, McDaniel (‘460) discloses water is present and molar ratio of water to silicon is present in a range from about 0.05:1 to 1.95:1 (Col.6 lines 13-21, 58-65), therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of applicant invention that the amount of water would be present on a titanated silica support which would either “overlap or lie inside ranges of 0.5 to 12 wt.% disclosed by McDaniel”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, which provides higher melt index polymer by McDaniel (‘460, Col.2 lines 34-40). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
McDaniel (‘460) does not explicitly disclose or suggest a bound alkali metal, wherein the bound alkali metal is that which remains bound to the titanated silica support after three equal wash/filtration cycle totaling 300 lb of wash water per lb of the titanated silica support, on a dry basis, and which is quantified by ICP analysis; wherein a molar ratio of the alkali metal to the titanium is from 0.05:1 to 3:1 and/or at an amount of the bound alkali metal is in a range from 0.04 to 2 mmol of the bound alkali metal per gram of the silica of claim 1.
However, Witt discloses polymerization catalyst comprised of chromium oxide and supports containing one or more of silica, titania wherein the catalyst is prepared by first combining chromium oxide and the supported utilized in known manner and wherein the catalyst produced is impregnated with a metal selected from the group consisting of alkali metal salts (see abstract, Col.1 lines 56-68, Col.3 lines 20-42, example 1, i.e., sodium, reads on bound alkali metal such as sodium on silica titania support of claim 1, reads on claims 4-5, 25, 29, 33, 37), alkaline earth metal salts and mixture thereof and then activated. Witt further discloses content of alkali metal in amount from 50 to about 500 micromoles per gram of the catalyst (equivalent to 0.05 to 0.5 mmol per gram, see Col.3 lines 57-68, reads on claims 1, 3 limitation of 0.04 to 2 mmol of the bound alkali metal, read on claims 27, 35 limitation of 0.1 to 1.2 mmol per gram of bound alkali metal, reads on claims 30 and 38 limitation of 0.15 to 0.9 mmol per gram of bound alkali) and further discloses in example 1 amount of titanium is 2.5% (see example 1). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Given, McDaniel (‘460) and Witt discloses titanated silica support includes chromium and used in polymerization, therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of applicant invention to modify the a titanated silica support of McDaniel (‘460) to include alkali metal (i.e., sodium) in an amount range of 0.05 to 0.5 mmol/g of Witt which provides increased polymerization activities and results in polymers of high melt indexes as taught by Witt (Col.1 lines 50-53).
McDaniel and Witt does not disclose wherein the bound alkali metal is that which remains bound to the titanated silica support after three equal wash/filtration cycle totaling 300 lb of wash water per lb of the titanated silica support, on a dry basis, and which is quantified by ICP analysis but given that McDaniel and Witt discloses as set forth above substantially identical a titanated silica support as presently claimed therefore it is clear that titanated silica support of McDaniel and Witt would intrinsically have substantially identical bound alkali metal is that which remains bound to the titanated silica support after three equal wash/filtration cycles totaling 300 lb of wash water per lb of the titanated silica support, on a dry basis, and which is quantified by ICP analysis as presently claimed. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding Claim 8, McDaniel discloses amount of base (i.e., ammonium hydroxide-reads on nitrogen-containing compound) is present in weight ratio of base to solvent is any suitable range or any range discloses from about 1:5000 to 1:10 but does not explicitly disclose or suggest 0.01 to 1.5 wt.% of nitrogen.
Since McDaniel (‘460) discloses weight ratio of base to solvent can be any suitable range and further discloses in range from 1:5000 to about 1:10, therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of applicant invention to optimize desired range of nitrogen in amount of 0.01 to 1.5 wt.% by routine experiment to provide higher melt index polymer by McDaniel (‘460, Col.2 lines 34-40, See MPEP2144.05).
Regarding Claims 23, 26, 31 and 34, McDaniel in view of Witt discloses a titanated silica support as disclosed above but does not explicitly disclose or suggest molar ratio of the bound alkali metal to the titanium is from 0.12:1 to 2.2:1 of claims 23, 31 and molar ratio of bound sodium to the titanium is from 0.2:1 to 1.8:1 of claims 26, 34.
However, since McDaniel discloses titanated silica support and/or titanated chromium silica support comprising of 0.1 to 20 wt.% of titania (titanium (Col.11 lines 64-67 to Col.12 lines 1-6, Col.19 lines 47-49) while Witt discloses about 2 wt.% of titania (ex.1) and amount of alkali metal amount (i.e., sodium) from 0.05 to 0.5 mmol/g (see Col.3 lines 57-68) therefore molar ratio of the bound alkali metal to the titanium from 0.12:1 to 2.2:1 of claims 23, 31 and molar ratio of the bound sodium to the titanium from 0.2:1 to 1.8:1 of claims 26,34 would be expected unless otherwise unexpected results are shown by applicant.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant remarks on pages 1-7, filed on 05/27/2026 with respect to the rejections of claims 1-8 and 23-38 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over McDaniel (US Patent No.: 10,300,460 B1 (‘460)) in view of Witt et al (US Patent No.: 5,444,132) have been fully considered and is not persuasive.
Applicant argues mainly that Witt discloses alkali metal is added by impregnation onto catalyst after its formation and as a result, the alkali metal is not bound to the support or catalyst. In addition applicant argues that tables that were demonstrated that shows that sodium or potassium remains bound in a significant amount in the present application while McDaniel in view of Witt won’t result bound to support and further there is no washing step that would simply remove the alkali metal that was just added by impregnation and therefor the combination of McDaniel and Witt can’t result in “bound” alkali metal as in the present.
However, Examiner respectfully traverses the rejection as disclosed above since presently claimed invention pertains to a titanated silica support and/or titanated chromium/silica pre-catalyst which is taught by McDaniel and Witt as set forth above. McDaniel discloses a titanated silica support comprising silica, titanium, water, carbon while Witt discloses catalyst comprising of chromium oxide, support containing one or more silica, titania, alumina, zirconia, thoria and further discloses that silica support employed in supported chromium oxide catalyst with titania by introducing aqueous solution of alkali metal silicate, aging the hydrogel which forms, washing the hydrogel to reduce alkali metal content and further also describes that catalyst is combined with a methanol solution of lithium or sodium formate, acetate or hydroxide or a mixture of such salts and the resulting mixture is stirred and methanol solvent is removed from the mixture by evaporation followed by calcination (see col.2 lines 44-50, 59-68, col.3 lines 1-3). Witt does disclose washing the hydrogel to reduce alkali metal content,there would be some bound alkali metal present to the titanated silica support unless applicant clearly shows unexpected results. Further Witt also discloses adding alkali metal salt along with methanol solvent and then removed by evaporation followed by calcination (See Col.3 lines 33-61).
In addition, although McDaniel and Witt et al does not explicitly teach bound alkali metal is that which remains bound to the titanated silica support after three equal wash/filtration cycle totaling 300lb of was water per lb of the titanated silica support, on a dry basis, and which is quantified by ICP analysis but given that McDaniel and Witt discloses as set forth above substantially identical a titanated silica support as presently claimed therefore it is clear that titanated silica support of McDaniel and Witt would intrinsically have substantially identical bound alkali metal is that which remains bound to the titanated silica support after three equal wash/filtration cycles totaling 300 lb of wash water per lb of the titanated silica support, on a dry basis, and which is quantified by ICP analysis as presently claimed. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Further, applicant’s does not define what “bound alkali metal” and/or “bound sodium” is in the presently claimed invention and can interpret bound as bound to anything (i.e., is alkali and/or sodium bound to titanated silica support or bound to titanium or bound to silica or bound to support) by any process (i.e., impregnation, chemically). Given the claim broadest reasonable interpretation in view of specification, examiner interprets bound that can be bound to anything via any process which can include impregnation. Therefore the rejection is maintained using McDaniel in view of Witt.
Further Affidavit declaration under 1.132 submitted by applicant does not commensurate with scope of the claims for the following reasons: Witt reference discloses the amount of alkali metal impregnated onto support is 0.05 to 0.5 mmol/g. Applicant shows in table A that experiments were done using sodium in amount of 0.2 and 0.3 mmol/g and that resulted in bound sodium of 0.01 mmol/g while claimed range is from 0.04 to 2 mmol/g. Examiner can’t not figure out from the Table A asto how the applicant came up with 0.01 mmol/g of bound sodium. Further applicant only showed experiment using midrange of alkali metal present and did not show any results with lower range and upper range of Witt reference to see that unexpected results do occur as applicant mentions. In addition, Applicant did not define clearly what “bound” means in the presently claimed invention and specification defines bound as a for instance which is interpreted as an example and therefore can interpret “bound” reasonably as broad. Therefore prior art taught by Witt teaches titanated silica support which would have portion of bound sodium which would read on presently claimed limitation that overlaps the claimed range and as long as any alkali metal content present would read on claimed bound alkali metal since applicant does not distinguish bound alkali metal being different and the specification does not give clear explanation of what bound means. Further examiner did not rely on the molar ratio of the bound alkali metal to the titanium and/or bound zinc to the titanium and only relayed on the amount of bound alkali metal for examining purpose which is taught by Witt, so all the arguments related to molar ratio is moot.
Further Tab B incommensurate scope of the claims (see MPEP 716.02d) since presently claimed range of bound alkali metal is 0.04 to 2 mmol/g while applicant shows bound sodium ranging from 0.04 to 0.60 and did not show results occur over entire claimed range.
Based on the reason above the cited prior art taught by McDaniel and Witt teaches the claim invention, however, if the applicant believes that the pending claims are distinct from the cited prior art, the applicant needs to further modify the claim limitation/language to clarify the claim subject matter for further consideration and distinction from the prior art.
Examiner maintains 112(b) rejection of Claims 1, 3-5, 23, 25-27, 29-31, 33-35, 37-38 as set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SMITA S PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-5837. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-W.
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).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ching-Yiu Fung can be reached at 5712705713. The 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, 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.
/SMITA S PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 07/15/2026
Prosecution Insights