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 Office action is in response to the amendment filed 8/20/2025. Claims 1-3, 11-18 are withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to non-elected invention; claims 4 and 19 are amended; claim 5 is cancelled. Accordingly, claims 1-4 and 6-19 are currently pending in the application.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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 4, 6-8, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al (CN 1176114 C) in view of Holtcamp et al (US 2019/0040167 A1).
It is noted that CN 1176114 C is in Chinese. A copy of the machine translation into English is provided with Office action mailed 5/22/2025. All line/paragraph citations in the body of rejection below are to the English translation unless explicitly stated.
Regarding claims 4 and 6, Wei et al disclose in example 1, a method comprising adding 6.6 g of cyclopentadiene and 11.6 g of indene to three-necked flask filled with tetrahydrofuran (i.e., reads on the molar ratio of 1:1 in present claim 4). To this was added butyl lithium in a dropwise manner and stirred and the reaction mixture was stored for use (paragraph 016) which reads on dissolving compound of formula 4 and formula 5 in a solvent as in present claim 4. To another flask is added zirconium tetrachloride (i.e., reads on M = Zr and X = halogen in present claim 4; and ZrCl4 in present claim 6) and tetrahydrofuran. The obtained reaction mixture is added with stirring to the solution and heated at 450C for 4 hours (paragraph 017) which reads on adding a compound of formula 6 to the solution obtained in step (1) and stirring to obtain a hybrid catalyst system comprising at least two of the transition metal compounds represented by formula 1 to 3 in present claim 4.
Wei et al are silent with respect to species of formula 4-2 to 4-10 and 5-2 to 5-10.
However, Wei et al in the general disclosure teach indene or its substituted derivatives, cyclopentadiene or substituted cyclopentadiene and zirconium tetrachloride as metallocene active components (paragraph 005). Additionally, Holtcamp et al teach a catalyst system comprising an unbridged metallocene compound and an additional unbridged metallocene compound having a structure different from the first unbridged metallocene compound. The catalyst system may be used for preparing polyolefins (abstract). Examples of unbridged zirconium metallocene include CpmZrX’q where each Cp is independently a cyclopentadienyl group such as cyclopentadiene, indene which may be substituted or unsubstituted (paragraph 0067). Independently, each Cp may be substituted with substituent groups R. Non-limiting examples of substituent groups R include one or more groups selected from hydrogen or linear or branched alkyl radicals such as methyl, ethyl, propyl or phenyl groups (paragraph 0072). Therefore, in light of the teachings in Holtcamp et al and given that Wei et al contemplate using substituted derivatives of cyclopentadiene and indene in the preparation of its catalyst system, it would have been obvious to one skilled in art prior to the filing of present application to include lithium salts of known derivatives of cyclopentadiene and indene including substituents such as ethyl, propyl or phenyl groups, in the process of Wei et al, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 7, see example 1, of Wei et al, wherein tetrahydrofuran is used as the solvent (paragraphs 016-017).
Regarding claim 8, see example 1, of Wei et al, wherein solvent was removed from the reaction mixture and remaining solid was recrystallized with toluene to obtain a solid (paragraph 018) which reads on drying the hybrid catalytic composition obtain in step (2) in present claim 8.
Regarding claim 19, in addition to 8a to 8c above, obtained solid and methylaluminoxane (i.e., reads on the cocatalyst in present claim 19) were loaded onto silica gel (paragraph 018) which reads on supporting hybrid catalyst obtained in step (2) on a carrier in present claim 19.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al (CN 1176114 C) in view of Holtcamp et al US 2019/0040167 A1) and Ernst et al (US 6,479,424 B1).
The discussion with respect to Wei et al and Holtcamp et al in paragraph 8 above is incorporated here by reference.
Wei et al and Holtcamp et al are silent with respect to dissolving dried catalytic composition and removing unreacted substances or impurities with a filter.
However, Ernst et al in the same filed of endeavor teach a general procedure for reacting appropriate substituted indenyl lithium compound and either hafnium or zirconium tetrachloride dissolved in anhydrous toluene. The reaction was stirred from 4 hours to overnight at RT. The resulting solids were dissolved in methylene chloride (i.e., reads on the solvent dichloromethane in present claim 10) and filtered through a pad of celite (col. 22, lines 39-45). Therefore, in light of the teachings in Ernst et al, it would have been obvious to one skilled in art prior to the filing of present application to dissolve the dried hybrid catalyst, of Wei et al, using a known process of dissolving the solid catalyst in a solvent such as dichloromethane and filter any unreacted materials, absent evidence to the contrary.
Response to Arguments
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 103 as set forth in paragraphs 6 and 11, of office action mailed 5/22/2025, are withdrawn in view of the amendments and/or applicant arguments and/or new grounds of rejection set forth in this office action, necessitated by amendment.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARUNA P REDDY whose telephone number is (571)272-6566. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM M-F.
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.
/KARUNA P REDDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764