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 8/7/2025. Claims 1-2 are amended; claims 11-14 are withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to non-elected invention. Accordingly, claims 1-14 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 Objections
Claims 4 and 6-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 recites “attenuated post-metallocene catalyst is of formula (III) is attenuated light-off catalyst (I):
PNG
media_image1.png
206
367
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(III-a); wherein A- is an anion (used to formally balance the positive charge of metal M); and wherein R is a ligand of formula (A), (B), or (C): -C(R5)=C(X)R6 (A), -C(R5)2-C(X)=C(R6)2 (B), or -C(R5)(R7)-C(X)(R6)R7) (C), respectively; and wherein R5 to R7 are as defined previously for formula (A1), (B1), or (C1) respectively. M is Hf or Zr.” (lines 3-8) and should read “attenuated post-metallocene catalyst is of formula (III-a):
PNG
media_image1.png
206
367
media_image1.png
Greyscale
; wherein A- is an anion (used to formally balance the positive charge of metal M); and wherein R is a ligand of formula (A), (B), or (C): -C(R5)=C(X)R6 (A), -C(R5)2-C(X)=C(R6)2 (B), or -C(R5)(R7)-C(X)(R6)R7) (C), respectively; and wherein R5 to R7 are as defined previously for formula (A1), (B1), or (C1) respectively, M is Hf or Zr.”
Claims 6-7 are objected to because of improper grouping of Markush elements. Claims 6 and 7 recite “…selected from phenylacetylene … and an acetylene of formula” (lines 2-5) and “selected from a cycloalkylallene … and an ester of an allenecarboxylic acid” (lines 2-4), respectively. Proper Markush grouping is listed as “selected from the group consisting of A, B, C and D”. Alternatively, it can be listed as “selected from A, B, C or D”. See MPEP 2173.05(h).
Appropriate correction and/or clarification are required.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuhlman et al et al (US 2021/0403615 A1 with a provisional filing date of 11/6/2018) in view of Hall et al (US 2003/0104927 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 5-7, Kuhlman et al disclose a solution of an alkane soluble non-metallocene pre-catalyst dissolved in an alkane solvent with an activator so as to make a trim catalyst (i.e., reads on activating a post-metallocene precatalyst in present claim 1). Examples of non-metallocene catalyst include 1B represented by the following formula:
PNG
media_image2.png
255
177
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(abstract) which reads on post-metallocene precatalyst in present claim 1, wherein R1 to R4 is hydrogen, RH is C1-alkyl, X is arylalkyl (i.e., reads at least one X = C7-C20 aralkyl and the other X = (C1-C6)alkyl substituted (C6-C12)aryl in present claim 1. See Table 1, wherein pre-catalyst 1B has a light-off performance of 0.8 (i.e., reads on faster-light-off catalyst in present claim 1).
Kuhlman et al are silent with respect to combining faster-light-off catalyst with an effective amount of kinetics modifier component.
However, Hall et al in the same field of endeavor teach that metallocene catalyst can be temporarily and reversibly passivated by contact with an effective amount of unsaturated hydrocarbon passivating compound (abstract). Metallocene catalysts are difficult to employ directly where the catalyst system will be dispersed in a hydrocarbon or the monomer and metered into the reactor through feed lines. Supported metallocene catalysts are optionally active when preactivated, i.e., combined with the cocatalyst compound prior to being introduced into the reactor. Dispersing such catalysts in the olefin monomer stream for direct feed to reactor system results in polymer formation and causes severe plugging of the feedline. Moreover, polymerization proceeds before the catalyst system is dispersed fully and uniformly through the polymer bed in the reactor, resulting in highly active hot spots that promote formation of lumps and plating out. The reactor becomes fouled, reducing catalyst yields and requiring frequent shutdown to clean the reactor (paragraph 0012). The active metallocene catalyst can be passivated by contacting with an effective amount of a passivating compound to provide a latent metallocene catalyst. Examples of unsaturated hydrocarbon are selected from 1-hexyne (i.e., reads on kinetic modifier compound of formula A1 wherein R5 = H and R6 = C1-C20 hydrocarbyl in present claim 1, 5, and acetylene of formula HCΞC-(CH2)mCH3 in present claim 6 wherein m = 3), allenes such as 3-methyl-1,2-butadiene (paragraph 0030) which reads on kinetic modifier compound of formula B1 in present claims 1 and 5, wherein R5 = C1-hydrocarbyl and R6 = hydrogen and a dialkylallene in present claim 7). Therefore, in light of the teachings in Hall et al, it would have been obvious to one skilled in art prior to the filing of present application to add a passivating agent, of Hall et al, to the activated non-metallocene catalyst, of Kuhlman et al, for above mentioned advantages.
Regarding claims 2 and 4, examples of non-metallocene precatalyst, in Kuhlman et al include
PNG
media_image2.png
255
177
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and the precatalyst is contacted with an activator (abstract). Typically, activator comprises aluminum and/or boron. Examples of activators include alkyylaluminoxane (paragraph 0070). Additionally, Hall et al teach that metallocene catalyst can be temporarily and reversibly passivated by contact with an effective amount of unsaturated hydrocarbon passivating compound (abstract) such as 1-hexyne and 3-methyl-1,2-butadiene (paragraph 0030). Given that pre-catalyst in Kuhlman et al is activated with an alkylaluminoxane, and it is obvious to passivate obtained faster-light-off catalyst with a hydrocarbon based on the teachings in Hall et al, one skilled in art prior to the filing of present application would have a reasonable basis to expect the faster-light-off catalyst to have the structure represented by formula:
PNG
media_image3.png
200
395
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and the attenuated post-metallocene catalyst to have the structure
PNG
media_image4.png
190
391
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, wherein R is a ligand of formula -C(R5)=C(X)R6 (A), or -C(R5)2-C(X)=C(R6)2 (B); X = aralkyl; R1 to R4 = hydrogen and RH = C1-alkyl (i.e., reads on present claim 2 and RH= CH3 in present claim 4), absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 3, see Table 1, wherein the precatalyst is HN5Zr dibenzyl and has a light-off performance of 78.6 minutes. It is noted that HN5Zr is represented by formula:
PNG
media_image5.png
150
331
media_image5.png
Greyscale
wherein Bn = benzyl (i.e., reads on post-metallocene precatalyst in present claim 3).
Regarding claim 8, examples of passivating agent in Hall et al include norbornene (paragraph 0030) which reads on the internal alkene in present claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, Kuhlman et al teach that a solution of an alkane soluble non-metallocene pre-catalyst is dissolved in an alkane solvent with an activator so as to make a trim catalyst (abstract). See Table 1, wherein pre-catalyst 1B has a light-off performance of 0.8 (paragraph 0141) which reads on step of making a faster-light-off catalyst by activating the precatalyst in present claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, Kuhlman et al teach that one or more pre-catalysts and one or more activators may be deposited on, contacted with, vaporized with, bonded to or incorporated within, adsorbed or absorbed in or on, one or more support or carrier material (paragraph 0077). Therefore, it is the Office’s position that it is within the scope of one skilled in art prior to the filing of present application to prepare a supported catalyst of the attenuated post-metallocene catalyst based on the disclosure in Kuhlman et al combined with the teachings in Hall et al, by mixing the solution of catalyst and support material for adsorbing/absorbing the catalyst and removing the solvent to obtain a dry catalyst, absent evidence to the contrary
Response to Arguments
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 103 as set forth in paragraph 13 and 18, of office action mailed 8/7/2025, are withdrawn in view of amendments and/or applicant arguments and/or new grounds of rejection set forth in this Office action, necessitated by amendment
While the grounds of rejection are changed, it was still deemed appropriate to address some of the arguments which would be pertinent to new grounds of rejection in this office action (See paragraph 11 below).
Applicant's arguments filed 8/7/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, general thrust of applicant’s argument is that Hall’s system is designed to temporarily suppress catalytic activity until the catalyst reaches the reactor bed, at which point the catalyst resumes its previous activity level. The structural and functional differences between metallocene and non-metallocene catalysts are significant. These differences affect not only the activation chemistry but also the polymerization behavior and susceptibility to modification. Tables 5-8 of application show that metallocene catalysts do not exhibit altered kinetic profiles upon addition of kinetic modifiers, whereas Tables 1 and 2 show that non-metallocene catalysts do. In summary, combining non-metallocene catalysts and kinetic modifiers yield surprising results and simply applying Hall’s metallocene kinetic modifier teachings to Kuhlman’s non-metallocene catalyst would change the principle of operation found in Hall.
In response, while there is showing of unexpected results based on a difference in the catalytic activity of post-metallocene catalyst (i.e., non-metallocene) and metallocene catalyst in their behavior towards kinetic modifier compounds, it is not commensurate with scope of claims. Specifically, KMC’s used in the examples in present application include only a few of formula A1 (such as phenyl acetylene), one of formula B1 (cyclohexylallele) and none of formula C1.
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