CTFR 17/999,781 CTFR 88600 DETAILED ACTION This communication responds to the Amendment filed March 23, 2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Claims 1-9 are under examination. The objection to claim 1 set forth in the Office Action dated December 23, 2025 is WITHDRAWN due to Applicant’s responsive amendment. The rejection of claim 6 under 35 USC 112 set forth in the December 23 Office Action is WITHDRAWN due to Applicant’s responsive amendment. The rejections of claims 1-9 set under 35 USC 103 and under an obvious type double patenting analysis set forth December 23 Office Action are MAINTAINED for the reasons set forth below. This action is final . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Do et al. (WO 2018/022975) in view of Leclerc et al. (US 7,528,203) . The rejections of claims 1-6, 8, and 9 are adequately set forth in the December 23 Office Action at paragraphs 16-18, which are incorporated by reference herein . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Do et al. (WO 2018/022975) in view of Leclerc et al. (US 7,528,203) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Evonik Aerosil Fumed Silica Product Overview (2019) . The rejection of claim 7 is adequately set forth in the December 23 Office Action at paragraphs 19-20, which are incorporated by reference herein. Double Patenting Claims 1, 2, and 7-9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of copending Application No. 18/710,874. The rejections of claims 1, 2, and 7-9 are adequately set forth in the December 23 Office Action at paragraphs 22-23, which are incorporated by reference herein. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claims 1-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7, 12, and 13 of US Patent No. 12,428,502. The rejections of claims 1-9 are adequately set forth in the December 23 Office Action at paragraphs 24-25, which are incorporated by reference herein. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments regarding the rejections of claims 1-9 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant makes three arguments in support of its assertion that claims 1-9 are patentable: Applicant : One of ordinary skill would not look to the teachings of Leclerc, given that Do relates to ethylene/α-olefin polymerization, and Leclerc relates to ethylene/cylopentene polymerization. (Remarks, p. 10.) Office : The Office generally agrees with Applicant’s characterizations of the prior art reference, but disagrees with Applicant’s conclusion. While Leclerc and Do relate to different comonomers in the copolymerization of ethylene, they are both concerned with olefinic polymerization. Further, the catalysts of Leclerc and Do are substantially similar – silyl-bridged bis-biphenyl-phenoxy catalysts. A person of ordinary skill would reasonably look to the teachings of references that relate to the polymerization of olefins using such similar catalysts. Applicant : The Office’s stated rationale for combining Do and Leclerc (minimizing reactor fouling and controlling polymer morphology) is a generic statement, and there is no evidence that it is true for the particular silyl-bridged catalysts of the present invention. (Remarks, pp. 10-11.) Office : The Office disagrees. As noted in the December 23 Office Action, Leclerc (which teaches silyl-bridged catalysts) states that its catalysts may be supported with carriers such as silica. Leclerc does not teach that a catalyst’s ability to be supported depends on the bridging atom – either silicon or carbon. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably infer that any of Leclerc’s catalyst (silyl-bridged or carbon-bridged) may be supported. Second, while the examiner’s rationale for combining Do and Leclerc does not relate particularly to the silyl-bridged catalysts, it is known in the art that supporting homogenous catalysts can alleviate problems with such catalysts in non-solution polymerization processes. ( See Denifl et al. (EP 1 323 746), paras. [0002]-[0003], provided by Applicant.) Thus, it would have been reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Do and Leclerc, especially given Leclerc’s teaching that the catalysts may be supported. Applicant : One of ordinary skill would not expect the combination of Do and Leclerc to produce a viable catalyst. (Remarks, p. 11.) Office : The Office disagrees for the reasons set forth above, especially given that Leclerc teaches such a catalyst system. As to the rejections under a double patenting analysis, the Applicant made no argument. Therefore, the rejections are maintained. Conclusion 07-39 AIA 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 CATHERINE S BRANCH whose telephone number is (571)270-3539. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday. 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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at 571-272-1130. 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. CATHERINE S. BRANCH Primary Examiner Art Unit 1763 /CATHERINE S BRANCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763 Application/Control Number: 17/999,781 Page 2 Art Unit: 1763
Prosecution Insights