DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s amendment dated 14 April 2026 is hereby acknowledged. Claims 1-13 as amended are pending, with claims 9-13 withdrawn. All outstanding objections and rejections made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Groups 1-8 in the reply filed on 14 April 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2009/0203855 (“Matsunaga”).
As to claims 1 and 2, Matsunaga teaches a solid titanium catalyst comprising titanium, magnesium, halogen and an ester compound (abstract).
The ester compound has the structure
PNG
media_image1.png
151
230
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(para. 0036). This ester compound teaches R1 having the same definition of groups R1 and R2 in formula 1 as recited. The groups R may all be hydrocarbon groups and other substituents as recited for groups R4-R8 as recited. The index n in this formula range from 5 to 10, such that n-4 ranges from 1 to 6, which substantially overlaps the range for n in claims 1 and 2.
Matsunaga does not exemplify the bridging group with a number of carbon atoms m. However, Matsunaga teaches that any of the R groups, including hydrocarbon groups may be mutually bonded rings (para. 0042). Matsunaga further teaches that the ring containing carbons to which OCOR1 is attached ranges from 5 to 10. Matsunaga, therefore, contemplates a bridging unit between carbons of 1 to 6 carbon atoms, which being hydrocarbons, may be substituted with hydrogen or other groups, the same as groups R as recited. This value substantially overlaps the range of 1 to 5 form in claim 1, and in claim 2. Given the ranges, the selection of a bridging group having 1 to 6 carbon atoms and 1 to 6 carbon atoms at the vertex, m plus n in excess of 4 is an obvious modification within the ranges suggested by Matsunaga.
As to claim 3, the groups R (corresponding to groups R4 to R8) are all independent (para. 0040). Since the groups R3 as recited can be viewed to be the unity of two groups R to form a bridging group, it is obvious that these groups should also be independent.
As to claim 4, R1 (corresponding to recited groups R1 and R2) is shown to preferred to be various unsubstituted alkyl groups (para. 0039).
As to claim 5, the groups R are defined with the same substituents as groups R4 to R8. Since Matsunaga teaches the groups R can be linked to form rings, the groups R3 would have a similar definition.
As to claim 6, Matsunaga teaches a catalyst for olefin polymerization including the solid titanium catalyst component and an organometallic compound catalyst (abstract) having the recited metal elements (para. 0096).
As to claim 7, Matsunaga further teaches the catalyst includes an electron donor (abstract, para. 0029).
As to claim 8, Matsunaga teaches polymerizing olefin in the presence of the catalyst (claim 8).
Double Patenting
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of US Patent No. 12,534,544. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because patented claim 4 recites a solid titanium catalyst component comprising titanium, magnesium halogen and a cyclic multiple ester compound of formula (1). Groups R1 and R2 are defined similarly to groups R1 and R2. Claim 4 recites bridging groups A having one or more carbon atoms, or two or more carbon atoms with substituents. Groups R3, R4, R11, and R12 are defined the same as claimed groups R5 to R8. Groups Ca, Cb, R13-R16, Cc, and R are defined within the definition of the carbon atoms indexed by n in claimed Formula (1). Claim 4 recites that A may be a bridging group having 1-3 carbon atoms, including substituents meeting the definition of R3. Given the choices where m in the patented claim may only be 0 or 1, and A is of a limited set of bridging groups, it would be an obvious modification within the claim to choose m as 0 and one of the bridging groups having 1 to 3 carbon atoms. This necessarily results in the structure of the pending claimed formula having m being 1 or greater or 2 or greater as required by claim 2, and n is at least 2 such that m plus n is 4 or greater as required by claims 1 and 2.
Patented claim 4 also requires that the substituents are each independent as required by claim 3, and recites substituents for corresponding variables required by claim 5.
Claims 4 and 6-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of US Patent No. 12,534,544 in view of US 2009/0203855 (“Matsunaga”).
The discussion of patented claim 4 with respect to claim 1 is incorporated by reference.
Patented claim 4 does not recite the same specific substituents for groups R1 and R2. However, Matsunaga teaches similar solid titanium catalyst including magnesium, halogen, titanium and a similar cyclic diester compound. The structure of patented claim 4 falls within the general definition of the cyclic diester of Matusnaga, which teaches substituents for R1 (corresponding to recited groups R1 and R2) is shown to preferred to be various unsubstituted alkyl groups (para. 0039); as such, the recited substituents are an obvious modification suggested by the similar catalyst component of Matsunaga.
As to claims 6-8, patented claim 4 does not state the catalyst and method. However, Matsunaga teaches a similar solid titanium catalyst including magnesium, halogen, titanium and a similar cyclic diester compound. The structure of patented claim 4 falls within the general definition of the cyclic diester of Matusnaga. Matsunaga teaches using this component in a catalyst for olefin polymerization including the solid titanium catalyst component and an organometallic compound catalyst (abstract) having the recited metal elements (para. 0096) as required by claim 6. Matsunaga further teaches the catalyst includes an electron donor (abstract, para. 0029) as required by claim 7. Matsunaga teaches polymerizing olefin in the presence of the catalyst (claim 8) as required by claim 8. As such, the use of the catalyst component of patented claim 4 as modified in the olefin polymerization catalyst is an obvious end use suggested by Matsunaga.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 14 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejections are maintained from the prior rejection, amended only to reflect that the copending application previously discussed has now issued.
The rejections under 35 USC 103 are maintained, with an amendment to change “griding” to “bridging” in reference to such group.
Applicant argues, with support of a declaration of by Takashi Kimura, that the catalyst of the invention has unexpected results in terms of catalytic activity and heat of melting. This is unpersuasive because applicant’s evidence is not commensurate in scope with the invention. With respect to polymerization activity, Matsunaga teaches catalysts with similar polymerization activity as taught by examples of applicant’s invention (see Matsunaga, table 1). With respect to the thermal characteristic, while Matsunaga does not discuss these characteristics, the difference presented between the two comparative examples are not so distinct so as to suggest the present structure provides unexpected results over the general structure of Matsunaga.
Conclusion
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 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