10/2/25DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Per amendment dated 8/7/25, claims 1-15 are currently pending in the application, with claims 12-15 being withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Figueroa et al. (US 2018/0265604 A1, cited in the IDS dated 5/16/23), in view of Hall et al. (US 2003/0104927 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 3-9, Figueroa teaches a procatalyst of the following formula (1) ([0018], [0062], ref. claims), that may be activated by combining with a co-catalyst component [0085]-[0088]:
PNG
media_image1.png
262
410
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein, R2, R3, R4, R5, R7, R8, R9, R10, R12, R13, R14 and R15 may be independently C1-C20 hydrocarbyl or a hydrogen atom (read on R2a, R2b, R3a, R3b in formula (I)), wherein “s” and “r” may me 0-3, R1 and R16 may be heterohydrocarbyl groups, e.g., carbazoyl groups as shown in the disclosed species below, R6 and R11 may be halogen atoms (read on R1a and R1b), “M” may be Ti, Zr or Hf, “X” may be a monodentate ligand, “L” may be C2-C40 hydrocarbylene, and “Z” may be oxygen atom. Disclosed procatalyst of formula (I) overlaps in scope with the presently claimed precatalyst of formula (I) of claim 1.
Additionally, disclosed species of formula (I) is as follows:
PNG
media_image2.png
330
650
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Disclosed species reads on precatalyst of formula (Ia), i.e., in formula (Ia), R1a=R1b=F; R2a=R2b=methyl; R3a=R3b=1,1-dimethyl (C6)alkyl; R4a=R4b=C3(alkyl)2C8alkyl-Si (g=0); R5a=R5b=H; M=Hf, X=methyl; and L=(CH2)4.
Figueroa is silent on an attenuated post-metallocene catalyst prepared by the method of claim 1.
At the outset, it is noted that 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.
In a related field of endeavor, the secondary reference to Hall teaches a latent olefin polymerization metallocene catalyst formed by temporarily and reversibly passivating an active metallocene catalyst with a passivating compound. Disclosed passivating compounds include 1-hexyne, 3-hexyne, 3-methyl-1,2-butadiene, norbornylene etc., and an effective amount thereof may be contacted with the metallocene catalyst under conditions that ensure complete reaction (Ab., [0002]-[0003], [0030]-[0033], ref. claims). Disclosed 1-hexyne, 3-hexyne read on modifier of formula (A1) of claim 6, i.e., in (A1), R5=H and R6=C4 hydrocarbon, or R5=R6=C2 hydrocarbon, and disclosed 1-hexyne reads on modifier of formula A1 of claim 7, i.e., m=3. Disclosed 3-methyl-1,2-butadiene, i.e., 1,1,-dimethylallene (a dialkylallene), reads on modifier of formula (B1) of claims 6 and 7. Disclosed norbornylene reads on an internal alkene of formula (C1) of claim 9.
Given the teaching in Hall that passivating a metallocene catalyst allows feeding the catalyst to the reactor with olefin monomers and adequately dispersing the catalyst on the reactor polymer bed prior to reactivating [0015]-[0017], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to passivate the activated procatalysts within the scope of Figueroa, including those that fall within the scope of the activated precatalysts of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Figueroa teaches activating the procatalysts of formula (I) with a cation forming co-catalyst, e.g., alkylaluminoxanes [0085]-[0091]. The secondary reference to Hall teaches passivating compounds for a metallocene catalyst (Ab., [0030]), in addition to cocatalysts, such as aluminoxane compounds [0023]-[0025]. Thus, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to activate Figueroa’s procatalysts that fall within the scope of claimed precatalyst of formula (I) with the disclosed co-catalysts, for further passivation with Hall’s passivating compounds, and reasonably expect the activated procatalyst and a passivated form thereof of overlapping scope to have the claimed formula (II) and formula (III), respectively, absent evidence to the contrary.
With regard to claims 10 and 11, Figueroa teaches activating the procatalysts of formula (I) with a cation forming co-catalyst [0085]-[0091]. Hall teaches reaction products formed by combining metallocene and a cocatalyst, such as aluminoxane, in aliphatic solvents and supporting them on suitable carriers, or alternatively, preparing a supported catalyst in a solvent, such as toluene, treating it with aluminoxane, precipitating and drying the product, and passivating the active metallocene catalyst with passivating compounds at a temperature and duration to ensure complete reaction ([0025]-[0031], Examples). In view of the teachings in Figueroa and Hall, it would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art to passivate Figueroa’s activated procatalysts with Hall’s passivating compounds, mixing it with a support material and an inert hydrocarbon solvent, and drying it to prepare supported passivated catalysts, including those of the claimed invention. As such, selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. MPEP 2144.04.
Response to Arguments
In view of the amendment dated 8/7/25, the 112(b) rejections of record are withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments with regard to art rejections and applied art have been duly considered.
Applicant argues that Figueroa, directed to post metallocene catalysts, is silent on the method of attenuating light-off behavior, on the use of kinetics modifier compound of claim 1, and on the concept of an attenuated light-off monomer uptake profile, whereas Hall, directed to metallocene catalysts, teaches passivation thereof using alkynes or allenes to delay catalyst activation during transport, and that Hall’s system is designed to temporarily suppress catalytic activity until the catalyst reaches the reactor bed before resuming previous activity levels. Applicant argues that metallocenes, with a sandwich-like coordination geometry with cyclopentadienyl ligands, differ from post-metallocene catalysts having more open coordination environments and different ligand frameworks, and the structural and functional differences impact the activation chemistry, the polymerization behavior and the susceptibility to modification. Referring to the data in Tables 1 and 2 of the application, Applicant argues that CE1 and CE2 have a much faster time to peak temperature compared to that of inventive Examples, indicative of the lasting altered kinetic profile exhibited by claim 1.
In response, as a recap of the rejection, Examiner has relied on the primary reference to Figueora for its teaching on a procatalyst (overlaps with claimed post metallocene precatalyst of formula (I)) that is activated by combining with an activator (i.e., providing for a faster-light off catalyst as claimed). Additionally, the secondary reference to Hall is relied upon its teaching on passivating agents (read on modifiers) for metallocene catalysts until the catalysts can reach the reactor bed before resuming previous activity levels. Thus, the combination of cited references teaches the claimed method steps and may include components of overlapping scope.
In response to arguments on unexpected results, the data in Tables 1 and 2 of the disclosure demonstrate unexpected results of inventive examples in comparison to CE1 and CE2. However, this data is limited to a superior performance of specific faster light off catalysts as modified by specific modifiers, e.g., cyclohexylallene as B1, and none representative of modifier C1 in Tables 1 and 2. It is not clear why this limited data would be reasonably representative of the method of claim 1 that is of a broader scope, i.e., the showing of unexpected results on record is not reasonably commensurate in scope with the claim language.
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 Satya Sastri at (571) 272 1112. The examiner can be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM-5.30PM (EST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone
are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Mr. Robert Jones can be reached at (571)-270-
7733. 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, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/Satya B Sastri/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762