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 .
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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2, 5 and 13-15 are currently under examination. Claims 3-4, 6-12, and 16-20 are withdrawn from consideration. Claim 1 is amended.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/28/2026 has been entered.
Previous Grounds of Rejection
The objection with respect to claim 8 is withdrawn because claim 8 is withdrawn from consideration.
In the light of the amendments, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Follestad et al. (US 6, 995, 219 B2) with respect to claims 1-2, 5 and 13 is amended as set forth below..
In the light of the amendments, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Follestad et al, and further in view of Klosin et al (WO 2012/027448 A1, applicant submitted in IDS) with respect to claims 14-15 is amended as set forth below.
Amended Grounds of Rejections
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.
Claims 1-2, 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Follestad et al. (US 6, 995, 219 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Follestad et al. teach a process for the preparation of a multimodal polymer comprising mixing
a multisite catalyst having a bidentate, tridentate or tetradentate ligand (the instant claimed first unimodal ligand-metal precatalyst) (col.3, lines 51-52),
more than one adjuvant selected from diphenyl acetylene (col. 6, lines 46-51) (the applicant’s elected modality-increasing organic compound having the formula (A1)), and
trialkyl aluminum compound ((R4)3Al (col. 6, lines 58-63)(the instant claimed an activator), and
the final form of the catalyst composition is generated in situ in the polymerization process (col. 10, lines 18-47).
As such, the bimodal ligand-metal catalyst formed in situ which catalyzes olefins polymerization to produce a polymer having a relatively lower molecular weight component and a relatively higher molecular weight component as a bimodal molecular weight distribution (Abstract, col. 1, line 10-col. 13, line 40, claims 1-17).
Although Follestad et al. is silent as to performance the process under inert atmosphere as per applicant claim 1, one of ordinary skill is known that any reactions in the presence of trialkyl aluminum must be handled strictly under an inert atmosphere (argon or nitrogen).
Trialkyl aluminum and similar compounds are extremely pyrophoric and react violently with air and moisture. They ignite spontaneously upon exposure to oxygen, releasing flammable gases and heat. This makes them completely unsuitable for handling or storage under air.
Regarding claim 2, as discussed above, the process taught by Follestad et al. comprises diphenylacetylene as the instant claim (col;. 6, line 51).
Regarding claim 5, as discussed above, the process taught by Follestad et al. comprises R2-C≡C-R2, wherein R2 are alternatively independently represents H and phenyl group as the instant claim (col;. 6, line 51).
Regarding claim 13, as discussed above, the process taught by Follestad et al. comprises mixing adjuvant, trialkyl aluminum and multi catalyst as the instant claim (col. 1, line 10-col. 13, line 40, claims 1-17).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Follestad et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Klosin et al (WO 2012/027448 A1, applicant submitted in IDS).
Although Follestad et al do not specifically disclose the first unimodal ligand-metal precatalyst of biphenylphenoxy ligand-Hf precatalyst (1) as per applicant claims 14-15, Klosin et al. teach a precatalyst having the structure as shown below (Fig. 10):
PNG
media_image1.png
1144
822
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As we see above, the biphenylphenoxy ligand-Hf precatalyst (1) of Klosin et al. corresponds to the instant claimed biphenylphenoxy ligand-metal precatalyst (1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine precatalyst of (1) taught by Klosin et al. in the process taught by Follestad et al.to obtain the invention as specified in the claims 14-15, motivated by the fact that the catalyst comprising a mixture or reaction product of the metal-ligand complex precatalyst and cocatalyst activator which is advantageously active at high reaction temperature, deliver, high comonomer incorporation into ethylene/alpha-olefin copolymer, and are soluble in alkane or cycloalkane solvents (pages 2-6).
Since both of Follestad et al. and Klosin et al. teach processes that copolymerizes two polymerizable olefins, in presences of the precatalyst, one would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
With regards to the previous Grounds of Rejection
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 5 and 13-15 filed on 04/28/2026 have been considered but are moot in view of the amended ground of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUN QIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5834. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10:00am-4:00pm.
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, Sally A Merkling can be reached at 571-272-6297. 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.
YUN . QIAN
Examiner
Art Unit 1738
/YUN QIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights