Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/276,173

BICYCLIC HAFNIUM METALLOCENES HAVING NONIDENTICAL LIGANDS

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Aug 07, 2023
Examiner
LEE, RIP A
Art Unit
1762
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Dow Global Technologies LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
78%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
1119 granted / 1345 resolved
+18.2% vs TC avg
Minimal -5% lift
Without
With
+-4.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
36 currently pending
Career history
1381
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
31.8%
-8.2% vs TC avg
§102
25.5%
-14.5% vs TC avg
§112
24.4%
-15.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1345 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION Claim Objections Claims 1-16 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1 and 7 are drawn to a bicyclic hafnium metallocene having non-identical ligands and a catalyst composition comprising a bicyclic hafnium metallocene having non-identical ligands. Groups X attached to the metal center are also considered ligands. The specification was consulted for guidance. Exemplary compounds n-PrCp(1,3-dimethyl-4,5,6-tetrahydropentalenyl)hafnium dichloride and n-PrCp(1,3-dimethyl-3,,5,6-tetrahydropentalenyl)hafnium dimethyl contain identical chloride and identical methyl groups, respectively. Based on these observations, claims do not appear to describe Applicant’s invention accurately. Dependent claims are subsumed under the rejection. Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 3, delete “be”. Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, please replace “the bicyclic” with “a bicyclic”. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 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 1-3, 7-11, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Holtcamp et al. (US 2019/0168203). Holtcamp et al. discloses a catalyst system containing an activator, a support, and the hafnocene compound shown below, corresponding to claimed compound of structure (I) in which n = 2 (claims 1, 9, 21, and 22). The activator to metallocene molar ratio is 1:1 to 500:1 (paragraph [0097]). The catalyst may be spray dried (paragraph [0106]). The catalyst is used in a process for making a polyolefin composition (claim 23). Polymerization is carried out in a gas phase reactor (paragraph [0194]). PNG media_image1.png 136 150 media_image1.png Greyscale Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holtcamp et al. (US 2019/0168203). The discussion of the disclosure of the prior art from the preceding paragraph is incorporated here by reference. Reference is silent with regard a molecular weight comonomer distribution index of resulting polymers. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected a polymer prepared using substantially the same catalyst containing claimed hafnocene compound in claimed gas phase polymerization process to exhibit substantially the same molecular weight property. Since the PTO cannot perform experiments, the burden is shifted to the Applicants to establish an unobviousness difference. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2112-2112.02. Claims 1-4, 7-9, 11, 13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCullough (US 6,911,508). McCullough discloses a metallocene compound represented by the formula shown below, wherein M is a group 4 atom. Exemplary compounds include: (1-methyltetrahydroindenyl) (cyclopentadienyl)zirconium dichloride, (2-methyltetrahydroindenyl) (cyclopentadienyl) zirconium dichloride, (1,2,3-trimethyl-tetrahydroindenyl)(cyclopentadienyl)zirconium dichloride, (2-propyltetrahydroindenyl)(cyclopentadienyl)zirconium dichloride, and (1,3-dimethyl-tetrahydroindenyl)(cyclopentadienyl)zirconium dichloride. PNG media_image2.png 114 252 media_image2.png Greyscale A supported catalyst for gas phase polymerization of olefins is prepared by combining the metallocene compound with an activator in a ratio of about 120/1. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to carry out the invention of prior art using correpsonding hafnium based metallocene compounds as these lie within the scope of protection of patent claims. Claims 1-5, 7-9, 11, 13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Hong et al. (EP 2679594) Hong et al. teaches metallocene compounds represented by the formula (4Hind)(Cpʹ)MX2 wherein 4Hind is a tetrahydroindenyl group and Cpʹ is a cyclopentadienyl group including cyclopentadienyl, indenyl, and fluorenyl. Representative compounds include hafnocenes containing an alkyl-substituted 4Hind/Ind ligand pair: (1-methyl-4, 5, 6, 7-tetrahydroindenyl)(indenyl)hafnium dichloride (page 3, line 56), (2-methyl-4, 5, 6, 7-tetrahydroindenyl)(indenyl)hafnium dichloride (page 4, line 11), and hafnocenes containing a 4Hind/Cp ligand pair: (4, 5, 6, 7-tetrahydroindenyl)(cyclopentadienyl)hafnium dichloride (page 10, line 9), and (4, 5, 6, 7-tetrahydroindenyl)(1-methyl-3-n-butylcyclopentadienyl)hafnium dichloride (page 10, line 50). While reference does not list specifically a series of hafnium compounds containing an alkyl-substituted 4Hind/Cp ligand pair, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious from representative compounds to mix ligand sets and make compounds such as (1-methyl-4, 5, 6, 7-tetrahydroindenyl)(cyclopentadienyl)hafnium dichloride and (1-methyl-4, 5, 6, 7-tetrahydroindenyl)(1-methyl-3-n-butylcyclopentadienyl)hafnium dichloride, since these are within the scope of compounds represented by general formula (4Hind)(Cpʹ)MX2. Metallocenes of the prior art are combined with a cocatalyst in a ratio on order of 1:1000 to prepare an active catalyst for polymerization of olefins (paragraph [0025]). Additionally, the catalyst may be supported on a porous inorganic carrier (paragraph [0028]). Such a catalyst is used in a gas phase polymerization process (paragraph [0033]). Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. None of cited references teaches the compound depicted in claim. PNG media_image3.png 138 156 media_image3.png Greyscale 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 March 11, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 07, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 11, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600807
POLYPROPYLENE FILM WITH IMPROVED SLIP PERFORMANCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600805
FLUORINE-CONTAINING ALKYL AMMONIUM BORATE COMPOUND AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595322
GAS-PHASE BIPHENYLPHENOL POLYMERIZATION CATALYSTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594538
CONTINUOUS PROCESSOR UTILIZING QUANTUM FIELD MICRO-VARIABLE PARTICLE INTERACTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590245
LONG-PERSISTENT LUMINESCENCE EMITTER AND LONG-PERSISTENT LUMINESCENT DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
78%
With Interview (-4.7%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1345 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month