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 an amendment filed on 01/30/2026.
Claims 1-8 and 23-38 are pending and under examination. Applicant has amended claims 2-5, 7-8, 23-38 and cancelled claims 9-22.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 01/30/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patent NO.: 12,269,911 and US Patent NO.: 12,077,627 have been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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 not clear as to what “bound” means 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 or catalyst) by any process (i.e., impregnation, chemically). Further specification does not define what “bound” means and “for instance” is considered as example and not considered as definition and therefore interpreted “bound” reasonable as broad for examining purpose. 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 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 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).
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 2-10, filed on 01/30/2026 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 and does not claim any method steps and applicant arguments are related to method steps therefore applicant’s argument in particular to washing step and other method steps that are mentioned are moot. Further, applicant’s specification does not define what “bound” means and discloses in the specification bound as “for instance” which is considered as example and not considered as definition and therefore interpreted “bound” as reasonable as broad for examining purpose in which impregnation of alkali metal onto support of Witt would result in bound to the support unless applicant shows side by side comparison with only one variable being different and also the ranges can select (i.e., one upper, one lower, and one mid-range of bound alkali amount of Witt) to show unexpected result of presently claimed invention. 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 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 silica being attached to ( via impregnation) titanated silica support so would have to 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, 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 and further applicant did not define clearly asto what bound alkali metal means.
Applicant’s amendment for claim 8 overcomes the 112b rejection of record but maintains the 112(b) rejection made previously for claims 1, 3-5, 23, 25-27, 29-31, 33-35 and 37-38.
Applicant’s amendment overcomes the Claims objection of record.
Double-patenting rejections have been withdrawn as the applicant has filed the terminal disclaimer that has been approved.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SMITA S PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-5837. The examiner can normally be reached on 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 on 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. For more information about the PAIR system. 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 03/03/2026