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 .
Applicant’s amendment dated 17 October 2025 is hereby acknowledged. Claims 1-3, 7, 8, 10-13, 15, 16, 18-21, and 27-29 as amended are pending. All outstanding objections and rejections made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior office action.
New grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant’s amendment filed on 17 October 2025. For this reason, the present action is properly made final.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 17 October 2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of a patent granted on US App. Ser. Nos. 18/005,754, 18/005,759, and 18/262,622 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 1-3, 10, 11, 16, 18, 20, 21, and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2019/191068 A1 (“Keaton”) as evidenced by JP 2018-080234 A (“Shiono”).
The additional reference is cited for evidence that a recited limitation is inherently met by the primary reference. See MPEP 2131.01.
As to claims 1-3, 10, 11, 16, 18, 20, 21, and 28, Keaton teaches a process of polymerizing olefins, by contacting ethylene and higher olefin in the presence of a Group IV metal ligand complex (abstract). Para. 0203 discloses an exemplary polymerization of ethylene and 1-octene, a C8 alpha olefin as required by claims 1 and 28, with a procatalyst and MMAO-3A. The procatalyst used is shown at para. 0200; this procatalyst meets the metal ligand complex of formula (I) where M is Zr as required by claims 1 and 20, each X is methyl, the complex is neutral, each Z is O, each R1 and R16 are a radical of formula (II) as required by claims 1 and 10, where each R31, R33 and R35 are H, and each R32 and R34 are C4 hydrocarbyl as required by claim 11, R2, R4, R5, R7, R8, R9, R10, R12, R13, R15 are H, R3 and R14 are each C4 alkyl as required by claims 1 and 16, R6 and R11 are tert-butyl as required by claims 1 and 18, L is –CH2(CH2)mCH2- where m is 1 as required by claims 1 and 21.
The MMAO-3A is hydrocarbyl modified methylaluminoxane as required by claim 1. While Keaton does not state that amount of trihydrocarbylaluminum is less than the thresholds of claims 1-3, para. 0082 of Shiono shows that the amount of trihydrocarbylaluminum content is less than 15 mol percent of aluminum, as required by claims 1-3.
As to claims 27 and 29, Keaton teaches a process of polymerizing olefins, by contacting ethylene and higher olefin in the presence of a Group IV metal ligand complex (abstract). Para. 0203 discloses an exemplary polymerization of ethylene and 1-octene, a C8 alpha olefin as required by claims 27 and 29, with a procatalyst and MMAO-3A. The procatalyst used is shown at para. 0200; this procatalyst meets the metal ligand complex of formula (I) where M is Zr, each X is methyl, the complex is neutral, each Z is O, each R1 and R16 are a radical of formula (II), where each R31, R33 and R35 are H, and each R32 and R34 are C4 hydrocarbyl, R2, R4, R5, R7, R8, R9, R10, R12, R13, R15 are H, R3 and R14 are each C4 alkyl, R6 and R11 are tert-butyl, L is –CH2(CH2)mCH2- where m is 1. The example of para. 0203 uses an activator that includes no borate (paras. 0193-0197, showing structures of activators lacking borate) as required by claim 29.
The MMAO-3A is hydrocarbyl modified methylaluminoxane. While Keaton does not state that amount of trihydrocarbylaluminum is less than the threshold, para. 0082 of Shiono shows that the amount of trihydrocarbylaluminum content is less than 25 mol percent based on aluminum.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, 8, 15, 16, 19, 21, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2017/004462 (“Figueroa A”) as evidenced by JP 2018-080234 A (“Shiono”).
The additional reference is cited for evidence that a recited limitation is inherently met by the primary reference. See MPEP 2131.01.
As to claims 1-3, 7, 8, 15, 16, 19, 21, and 28, Figueroa A teaches a polymerization process comprising ethylene and optionally olefin in the presence of a metal ligand complex (abstract). Figueroa A exemplifies batch polymerization of ethylene and 1-octene, a C8 alpha olefin as required by claims 1 and 28 (p. 71-72, Table 1). These polymerizations use MMAO-3A, a modified methylaluminoxane, and a metal ligand complex. As one example, batch process uses inventive catalyst 1 as the metal ligand complex. Page 32 of Figueroa A shows the structure of the metal ligand complex that meets formula (I) where M is Hf, n is 2, each X is methyl, the complex is neutral, each Z is O, R1 and R16 are each a unit of formula (III) as required by claims 1 and 7, where R41, R43, R44, R45, R46, and R48 are hydrogen, and R42 and R47 are each C8 hydrocarbyl as required by claim 8, each R8 and R9 are C1 alkyl as required by claims 1 and 15, each of R3 and R14 are tert-octyl as required by claims 1, 16, and 19, the remainder of R1-R16 are either hydrogen or halogen, L is -CH2CH2CH2- as required by claims 1 and 21.
While Figueroa A does not state that amount of trihydrocarbylaluminum is less than the thresholds of claims 1-3, para. 0082 of Shiono shows that the amount of trihydrocarbylaluminum content is less than 15 mol percent of aluminum, as required by claims 1-3.
Claim(s) 1-3, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19-21, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2020/047384 A1 (“Figueroa B”) as evidenced by JP 2018-080234 A (“Shiono”).
The additional reference is cited for evidence that a recited limitation is inherently met by the primary reference. See MPEP 2131.01.
As to claims 1-3, 5, 12, 13, 16, 19-21, and 28, Figueroa B teaches a polymerization process (para. 0075) of ethylene and 1-octene, a C8 alpha olefin as required by clams 1 and 28. Figueroa B includes MMAO-3A, a hydrocarbyl modified methylaluminoxane as required by claim 1, and a procatalyst. Tables 1 and 2, Paras. 0147 and 0148, show results with procatalysts 1-4, the structures of which are shown at para. 0051. Each of these is a metal ligand complex; as an example, procatalyst 3 meets formula (I) where M is Zr as required by claims 1 and 20, n is 2, each X is methyl, each Z is O, R1 and R16 are each a group of Formula IV as required by claims 1 and 12, where R53 and R58 are each C4 hydrocarbyl as required by claim 13, the remainder of R51 to R59 being hydrogen, R2 to R15 having the recited substituents, R3 and R14 being tert-octyl as required by claims 1, 16, and 19, L is a species recited by claims 1 and 21.
While Figueroa B does not state that amount of trihydrocarbylaluminum is less than the thresholds of claims 1-3, para. 0082 of Shiono shows that the amount of trihydrocarbylaluminum content of the hydrocarbyl modified methylaluminoxane is less than 15 mol percent of aluminum, as required by claims 1-3.
As to claim 15, Figueroa B also exemplifies procatalyst 2 (para. 0051), which meets formula (I) where R1 and R9 are each C1 alkyl.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, 16, 21, and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2020/139993 A1 (“Munro”) as evidenced by JP 2018-080234 A (“Shiono”).
The additional reference is cited for evidence that a recited limitation is inherently met by the primary reference. See MPEP 2131.01.
As to claims 1-3, 7, 16, 21, and 28, Munro teaches polymerization of ethylene and olefin, including propene and 1-octene, which are C3 and C8 alpha olefin as required by claim 28 (paras. 0306-0307, Table 1B). The same examples of Munro us modified methylaluminoxane MMAO-3A as required by claim 5. Examples BR6, BR8 and BR11 employ catalyst Cat 17, which structure is shown at para. 0211. Cat 17 is a metal ligand complex having the structure of formula (1), where M is Hf, n is 2, each X is C1 hydrocarbyl, charge neutral, each Z is O, R1 and R16 have the structure of formula (III) with R41-R48 being hydrogen as required by claims 1 and 7, R3 and R14 are C11 alkyl as required by claims 1 and 16, the remainder of R1 to R16 being hydrogen, L is tetramethylene as required by claims 1 and 21.
While Munro does not state that amount of trihydrocarbylaluminum is less than the thresholds of claims 1-3, para. 0082 of Shiono shows that the amount of trihydrocarbylaluminum content of the hydrocarbyl modified methylaluminoxane MMAO-3A is less than 15 mol percent of aluminum, as required by claims 1-3.
As to claims 27 and 29, Munro teaches polymerization of ethylene and olefin, including propene and 1-octene, which are C3 and C8 alpha olefin as required by claim 29 (paras. 0306-0307, Table 1B). The same examples of Munro use modified methylaluminoxane MMAO-3A. Examples BR6, BR8 and BR11 employ catalyst Cat 17, which structure is shown at para. 0211. Cat 17 is a metal ligand complex having the structure of formula (1), where M is Hf, n is 2, each X is C1 hydrocarbyl, charge neutral, each Z is O, R1 and R16 have the structure of formula (III) with R41-R48 being hydrogen, R3 and R14 are C11 alkyl, the remainder of R1 to R16 being hydrogen, L is tetramethylene.
Munro teaches the only other activator as CTA1 (para. 0307, Table 1B), which as shown at para. 0297 is not a borate activator.
While Munro does not state that amount of trihydrocarbylaluminum is less than the thresholds of claims 1-3, para. 0082 of Shiono shows that the amount of trihydrocarbylaluminum content of the hydrocarbyl modified methylaluminoxane MMAO-3A is less than 25 mol percent of aluminum.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 7, 12, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/191068 A1 (“Keaton”) as evidenced by JP 2018-080234 A (“Shiono”).
The discussion of Keaton with respect to claim 1 is incorporated by reference.
As to claim 7, while not exemplified, Keaton teaches a general formula for the metal ligand complex (para. 0068) meeting the limitations of formula (I),and teaches that groups R1 and R16 may be a group of formula (III) (para. 0069, showing formula XII), and as such, is an obvious modification suggested by Keaton.
As to claim 12, while not exemplified, Keaton teaches a general formula for the metal ligand complex (para. 0068) meeting the limitations of formula (I),and teaches that groups R1 and R16 may be a group of formula (IV) (para. 0069, showing formula XIII), and as such, is an obvious modification suggested by Keaton.
As to claim 15, while not exemplified with the recited MMAO, Keaton teaches the catalyst has a general formula including the recited structure (para. 0068), and exemplifies catalyst having R8 and R9 being methyl (see, e.g., para. 0076). As such, the use of the catalyst of this formula is an obvious substitution suggested by Keaton.
As to claim 19, while not exemplified with the recited MMAO, Keaton teaches the catalyst has a general formula including the recited structure (para. 0068), and exemplifies catalyst having R8 and R9 being methyl (see, e.g., para. 0077). As such, the use of the catalyst of this formula is an obvious substitution suggested by Keaton.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2017/004462 (“Figueroa A”) as evidenced by JP 2018-080234 A (“Shiono”).
The discussion of Figueroa A with respect to claim 1 is incorporated by reference.
As to claim 20, Figueroa A does not exemplify the polymerization with the recited formula. However, Figueroa A teaches a general formula (p. 4), which meets formula (I) where M may be Zr, and as such, the use of a Zr catalyst in the recited formula is an obvious substitution suggested by Figueroa A.
Claim(s) 10-12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/139993 A1 (“Munro”) as evidenced by JP 2018-080234 A (“Shiono”).
The discussion of Munro with respect to claim 1 is incorporated by reference.
As to claims 10 and 11, while not exemplified, Munro teaches the metal ligand complex catalyst shown in para. 0166, which meets recited formula (I) where each of R1 and R16 may be 3,5-diisopropylphenyl or 3,5-diisopropylphenyl, which meets the requirements of claims 7 and 8. As such, the use of this catalyst is an obvious modification suggested by Munro.
As to claim 12, while not exemplified, Munro teaches the metal ligand complex catalyst shown in para. 0166, which meets recited formula (I) where each of R1 and R16 may be anthracene-5-yl, which meets formula IV. As such, the use of this catalyst is an obvious modification suggested by Munro.
As to claim 20, while not exemplified in the recited system, Munro teaches the metal catalyst may be shown as the structure in para. 0165, which meets the recitation of formula (I) where M is Zr or Hf. As such, the use of a metal ligand complex using Zr in the formula (I) is an obvious modification suggested by Munro.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 17 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues against the application of Keaton, Figueroa B, and Munro as falling within the 35 USC 102(b)(1)(A) art exception. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because each of the references lists inventors other than the inventor or joint inventor of the present application. Therefore, in order to establish eligibility under this exception, in each instance, an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(a) is required. See MPEP 2153.01(a). Such an affidavit should show inventorship by the inventor or joint inventor of the present invention, and provide an explanation as to the presence of additional inventors in the prior art reference. See MPEP 2155.01, in particular the examples therein. Applicant has not provided the required declaration/affidavit.
Applicant argues against the application of Shiono to the rejections over Keaton, Figueroa A, Figueroa B, and Munro on the grounds that Shiono does not establish inherency.
Applicant has not shown in the specification or by other evidence or declaration that the comp 1 MMAO of applicant’s specification is MMAO-3A. The evidence from Shiono para. 0082 is that MMAO-3A is a commercial product with a trialkylaluminum content below 25 mol percent. Applicant’s further argument that Shiono teaches that other MAO compounds with varying alkylaluminum compound is not persuasive, given that Shiono shows MMAO-3A having the recited trialkylaluminum content.
Applicant’s further argument that Shiono is mainly directed to the use of phenol modified MAO is not relevant given the evidence it provides of the trihydrocarbyl aluminum content of MMAO-3A.
The prior nonstatutory double patenting rejections have been withdrawn pursuant to applicant’s terminal disclaimer.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KREGG T BROOKS whose telephone number is (313)446-4888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9 am to 5:30 pm.
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 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.
/KREGG T BROOKS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights