DETAILED ACTION
This office action follows a response filed on November 2025. Claims 1, 2, 7, 10, 13, 15, 16, 19, 22, 23, 26, 29, and 30 were amended. Claims 3 and 5 were canceled. Claims 1, 2, 7-10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21-23, 26, 29, and 30 are pending. The office action written on November 25, 2025 was posted in error and was vacated on December 4, 2025. The indication of allowable subject matter (former claim 5) has been withdrawn in view of a newly discovered reference. Rejections based on this reference follow.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 9, line 1, please replace “Formulae 3 to 6” with “Formulae 5 and 6”.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, please replace “ZrC14” with “ZrCl4”.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, please replace “HfC14” with “HfCl4”.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, please replace “ofclaim 15” with “of claim 15”.
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 4, delete “be” which appears between “Ra is each independently” and “a halogen”.
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 9, please replace “or cationic Lewis acid” with “Lewis base”.
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 17, line 2, pleas replace “triphenylcarbonium” with “triphenylcarbenium”.
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 19, line 4, please replace “Formulae 1 to 6” with “Formulae 1, 2, 5 and 6”.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the terms “transition metal compound represented by Formula 1” and “transition metal compound represented by Formula 2” in lines 2 and 3.
Claims 7-10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “transition metal compounds represented by Formulae 1 and 2” in lines 6 and 7 of claim 7. Dependent claims 8-10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, and 19 are subsumed under the rejection.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “transition metal compounds represented by Formulae 1 and 2” in lines 5 and 6.
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, 2, 21-23, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savatsky et al. (US 10,400,049).
Savatsky et al. discloses a method of preparing a first polyolefin in the presence of a first catalyst composition selected from the group consisting of: (i) [(2,4,6-Me3C6H2)NCH2CH2]2NHHfBz2, (ii) [(2,4,6-Me3C6H2)NCH2CH2]2NHZrBz2, or (iii) [(2,3,4,5,6-Me5C6)NCH2CH2]2NHZrBz2 and (n-PrCp)2HfCl2, and further comprising at least one metallocene catalyst selected from the group consisting of Ind2ZrCl2, (Me5C5)(n-PrCp)ZrCl2, or [sic] (Me4Cp)(n-PrCp)ZrCl2; see claims 1, 13, and 14.
The prior art claims contain two Markush groups. Phrasing of the first Markush group is unclear. On its own, the Markush group contains a non-metallocene compound and (n-PrCp)2HfCl2. Thus, claim instructs one to select a non-metallocene compound, and there are three choices of (i), (ii) or (iii). Alternatively, claim instructs one to select (n-PrCp)2HfCl2.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select (n-PrCp)2HfCl2 (corresponding to claimed compound represented by [Formula 2-1]) from the first Markush group and (Me5C5)(n-PrCp)ZrCl2 (corresponding to claimed compound represented by [Formula 1-1]) from the second Markus group, and thereby arrive at the hybrid catalyst composition described in instant claim 1. The combination is obvious because the number of elements in the first and second Markush groups is sufficiently small such that a total number of possible combinations is limited.
In light of the disclosure and working example, however, it appears that prior art claims intend to describe a catalyst composition that must contain one of the non-metallocene compounds (i), (ii) or (iii) in addition to (n-PrCp)2HfCl2. Thus, it would have been obvious to select one of the three non-metallocene compounds and (n-PrCp)2HfCl2 from the first Markush group and (Me5C5)(n-PrCp)ZrCl2 from the second Markush group and still arrive at the hybrid catalyst composition described in instant claim 1. This second embodiment still reads of instant claims because use of the transitional phrase “comprising” in line 1 of claim 1 does not exclude unrecited elements.
While Savatsky et al. does not proscribe a particular ratio of catalyst components, the selection of a practical ratio of catalyst component, and at the very least selection of a 1:1 ratio initially, is well within the level of ordinary skill, and therefore would have been obvious to the routineer in the art. Catalysts of the prior art necessarily contain activator (col. 18, lines 20-30). Inventors contemplate use of supported catalyst wherein the support is a porous material such as an inorganic oxide, talc, or inorganic chloride (col. 18, lines 36-40). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to prepare an appropriate amount, such as that recited in instant claims, of catalyst and cocatalyst on a support material to carry out polymerization of olefins.
Response to Arguments
The rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in paragraphs 48 to 50 of the previous office action dated August 21, 2025, have been withdrawn in view of claim amendments.
The rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kao et al. (US 7,410,926), set forth in paragraph 52 of the previous office action, has been overcome by amendment.
The rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 11,332,553), set forth in paragraph 53 of the previous office action, has been overcome by amendment.
The rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jensen et al. (US 7,119,153), set forth in paragraph 54 of the previous office action, has been overcome by amendment.
Conclusion
Claims 7-10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and will be allowable upon appropriate amendments; see paragraphs 11 and 12, supra.
Claim 29 has been objected to and will be allowable upon minor revision to correct matters of form. For purposes of completing PTO-326, the status of claim 30 is listed as “objected to”.
This office action contains new grounds of rejection as is therefore NON-FINAL.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rip A. Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-1104. The examiner can be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/RIP A LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762 September 20, 2026
Prosecution Insights