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. Claim Objections Claim s 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claim 1 , line 3 , the phrase “ treating MgCl2• xROH support ” is likely intended to be “ “treating a MgCl2• xROH support ”. Regarding claim 1 , lines 7-8 , the phrase “at the same or different temperature…” would preferably read “ the same temperature as used in step (a) or a t a different temperature …”. Claims 2-10 all depend from claim 1 and thus are also objected. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 1- 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klendworth et al. (US20100069586A1) in view of Kong et al. (US20230143086A1) . Regarding claim 1 , Klendworth teaches a method of making a Ziegler-Natta catalyst that is active in olefin polymerization reactions (Title; Abstract). Regarding step (a), Klendworth teaches MgCl2•xROH is reacted with neat TiCl4 (i.e. a transition metal halide) at a temperature ranging from –30 °C to 40 °C , where R is one or more of the following (provided that the total moles add up to "x"): a linear, cyclic or branched hydrocarbon unit with 1-10 carbon atoms and where ROH is an alcohol or a mixture of at least two different alcohols, preferably where the ROH is ethanol or a mixture of ethanol and a higher alcohol with R being a linear, cyclic or branched hydrocarbon unit with 3-10 carbon atoms like propanol, butanol, hexanol, heptanol or octanol, preferably 4-10 carbon atoms like butanol, hexanol, heptanol or octanol; and where x has a range of about 1.5 to 6.0, preferably about 2.5 to 4, more preferably about 2.9 to 3.4, and even more preferably 2.95 to 3.35 ([0021]; [0024]; [0037]; Claim 1). Regarding step (b), Klendworth teaches the reaction mixture is then warmed to a temperature between 30 and 100 °C followed by the addition of an internal electron donor ([0022]; [0025]; [0032]). Klendworth teaches the molar ratio between the electron donor and the MgCl2•x EtOH component, when R = 2, is 0.05 to 3.0, which when put in terms of the claim (Mg/electron donor), provides a taught molar ratio of MgCl2•x EtOH to electron donor of 0.33 to 20 ([0064]; Table 2, DBP/MgCl2 ratio). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range s taught by Klendworth ( x has a range of about 1.5 to 6.0; R is 1-10 carbon atoms; step (a) temperature ranging from –30 °C to 40 °C ; step (b) temperature between 30 and 100 °C; MgCl2/internal electron donor ratio 0.33 to 20 ) overlaps with the claimed range s ( x has a range of about 1 to 4.0; R is 1-10 carbon atoms; step (a) temperature ranging from –30 °C to 40 °C ; step (b) temperature between 0 and 100 °C; MgCl2/internal electron donor ratio about 1 to about 50 ). Therefore, the range s in Klendworth renders obvious the claimed range s . The claim further requires in step (b) a urea compound is added and that the “molar ratio of internal electron donor to urea compound is in the range of about 0.1 to about 100,” to which Klendworth is silent. Kong teaches a catalyst component and method of preparation where the catalyst comprises magnesium, titanium, halide, and internal electron donor compounds comprising dia l kylurea , malonate, succinate, and 1,3-diether (Abstract). Kong teaches an example where 2.5 mmol of tetramethylurea, 6.0 mmol of diethylphenylmalonate, 2.0 mmol of diethyl 2,3-diisopropylsuccinate and 5.0 mmol of 2-isopropyl 2-isopentyl dimethoxy propane are added ([0033]). The compounds diethylphenylmalonate, diethyl 2,3-diisopropylsuccinate and 2-isopropyl 2-isopentyl dimethoxy propane are all described as internal electron donors ([0011]-[0015]). Converting the taught molar amounts to a molar ratio of urea to internal electron donor provides a molar ratio of 5.2 (see calculations below) . In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the value taught by Kong ( urea to internal electron donor molar ratio of 5.2 ) overlaps with the claimed range ( internal electron donor to urea is 1 to 10 ). Therefore, the range in Kong renders obvious the claimed range. Advantageously, providing internal electron donors in combination with a urea component at the molar ratio of described in Kong provides a Ziegler-Natta system that can provide higher isotactic polypropylene polymer with a broad molecular weight distribution ([0005]). Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a molar ratio of internal electron donor to urea of 5.2 in the method of Klendworth in order to provide a Ziegler-Natta system that can provide higher isotactic polypropylene polymers with a broad molecular weight distribution as taught by Kong . Calculations: Adding mmol of malonate, succinate, diether = 6.0 + 2.0 + 5.0 = 13 mmol total internal electron donor 13 mmol internal electron donor / 2.5 mmol urea = 5.2 molar ratio Regarding claim 2 , Klendworth in view of Kong teaches the method of claim 1 and the claim further requires the urea compound is represented by Formula I, to which Klendworth is silent. Kong teaches a catalyst component and method of preparation where the catalyst comprises magnesium, titanium, halide, and internal electron donor compounds comprising dia l kylurea , malonate, succinate, and 1,3-diether (Abstract). wherein R1, R2, R3, and R4 are independently selected from hydrogen, an aliphatic hydrocarbon group having 1 to 20 carbon atoms, an alicyclic hydrocarbon group having 3-20 carbon atoms, an aromatic hydrocarbon group having 6-20 carbon atoms, or a hetero atom containing hydrocarbon group of 1 to 20 carbon atoms, wherein two or more of R1, R2, R3, and R4 may be linked to form one or more saturated or unsaturated monocyclic or polycyclic rings ([0011]). Advantageously, providing urea in combination with the internal electron donors described in Kong provides a Ziegler-Natta system that can provide higher isotactic polypropylene polymer with a broad molecular weight distribution ([0005]). Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a molar ratio of internal electron donor to urea of 5.2 in the method of Klendworth in order to provide a Ziegler-Natta system that can provide higher isotactic polypropylene polymers with a broad molecular weight distribution as taught by Kong. Regarding claim 3 , Klendworth in view of Kong teaches the method of claim 1 and Klendworth further teaches internal donor like aromatic esters, di ethers, succinates, or hindered amines, preferably dialkylphthalates like di-isobutylphthalate (D-i-BP) or di-n-butylphthalate (D-n-BP) ([0012]). Regarding claim 4 , Klendworth in view of Kong teaches the method of claim 1 and Klendworth teaches MgCl2•xROH is reacted with neat TiCl4 (i.e. a transition metal halide) at a temperature ranging from –30 °C to 40 °C ([0021]; [0024]; [0037]; Claim 1). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Klendworth (step (a) temperature ranging from –30 °C to 40 °C) overlaps with the claimed ranges ( treating step occurs step (a)temperature ranging from – 1 0 °C to 1 0 °C). Therefore, the range in Klendworth renders obvious the claimed range. Regarding claim 5 , Klendworth in view of Kong teaches the method of claim 1 and the claim further requires the molar ratio of internal electron donor to urea compound is in the range of about 1 to about 10 , to which Klendworth is silent. K ong teaches a catalyst component and method of preparation where the catalyst comprises magnesium, titanium, halide, and internal electron donor compounds comprising dia l kylurea , malonate, succinate, and 1,3-diether (Abstract). Kong teaches an example where 2.5 mmol of tetramethylurea, 6.0 mmol of diethylphenylmalonate, 2.0 mmol of diethyl 2,3-diisopropylsuccinate and 5.0 mmol of 2-isopropyl 2-isopentyl dimethoxy propane are added ([0033]). The compounds diethylphenylmalonate, diethyl 2,3-diisopropylsuccinate and 2-isopropyl 2-isopentyl dimethoxy propane are all described as internal electron donors ([0011]-[0015]). Converting the taught molar amounts to a molar ratio of urea to internal electron donor provides a molar ratio of 5.2 (see calculations below). Calculations: Internal electron donors = 6.0 mmol + 2.0 mmol + 5.0 mmol = 13 mmol Urea = 2.5 mmol 13/2.5 = 5.2 molar ratio In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the value taught by Kong ( internal electron donor to urea molar ratio of 5.2) overlaps with the claimed range (internal electron donor to urea is 1 to 10). Therefore, the value in Kong renders obvious the claimed range. Advantageously, providing urea in combination with the internal electron donors described in Kong provides a Ziegler-Natta system that can provide higher isotactic polypropylene polymer with a broad molecular weight distribution ([0005]). Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a molar ratio of internal electron donor to urea of 5.2 in the method of Klendworth in order to provide a Ziegler-Natta system that can provide higher isotactic polypropylene polymers with a broad molecular weight distribution as taught by Kong. Regarding claim 6 , Klendworth in view of Kong teaches the method of claim 1 and Klendworth further teaches the internal electron donor compound in general is used in an amount of from about 0.01 to about 2 mole, preferably from about 0.04 to about 0.6 mole, more preferably from about 0.05 to about 0.2 mole for each mole of the magnesium halide compound ([0043]). Converting the ratio of Klendworth to a molar ratio of magnesium halide to internal electron donor as claimed provides a taught range of from 0.5 to 100 (i.e. 1/0.01 = 100; 2/1 = 0.5) in Klendworth. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the value taught by Kong ( 0.5 to 100 molar ratio of magnesium halide to internal electron donor ) overlaps with the claimed range ( magnesium halide to internal electron donor ratio is about 5 to about 20 ). Therefore, the range in Kong renders obvious the claimed range. Regarding claim 7 , Klendworth in view of Kong teaches the method of claim 1 and the claim further requires “the urea compound is tetramethylurea” to which Klendworth is silent. Kong teaches a catalyst component and method of preparation where the catalyst comprises magnesium, titanium, halide, and internal electron donor compounds comprising dialkylurea , malonate, succinate, and 1,3-diether (Abstract). wherein R1, R2, R3, and R4 are independently selected from hydrogen, an aliphatic hydrocarbon group having 1 to 20 carbon atoms, an alicyclic hydrocarbon group having 3-20 carbon atoms, an aromatic hydrocarbon group having 6-20 carbon atoms, or a hetero atom containing hydrocarbon group of 1 to 20 carbon atoms, wherein two or more of R1, R2, R3, and R4 may be linked to form one or more saturated or unsaturated monocyclic or polycyclic rings ([0011]). Kong teaches an example that uses tetramethylurea ([0033]). Advantageously, providing urea in combination with the internal electron donors described in Kong provides a Ziegler-Natta system that can provide higher isotactic polypropylene polymer with a broad molecular weight distribution ([0005]). Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a urea component, specifically tetramethylurea, in the method of Klendworth in order to provide a Ziegler-Natta system that can provide higher isotactic polypropylene polymers with a broad molecular weight distribution as taught by Kong. Regarding claim 8 , Klendworth in view of Kong teaches the method of claim 1 and Klendworth further teaches the electron donor can be di-isobutylphtalate (D-i-BP) ([0041]; [0067]). Regarding claim 10 , Klendworth in view of Kong teaches the method of claim 1 and the claim further requires “the one or more electron donor comprises diethyl-2,3-diisopropyl succinate” to which Klendworth teaches succinates can be included (Claim 15) but is silent regarding explicitly using the compound diethyl-2,3-diisopropyl succinate. K ong teaches a catalyst component and method of preparation where the catalyst comprises magnesium, titanium, halide, and internal electron donor compounds comprising dialkylurea, malonate, succinate, and 1,3-diether (Abstract). Kong teaches the succinate compounds can include diethyl-2,3-diisopropyl succinate ([001 4 ]) while teaching an example using diethyl-2,3-diisopropyl succinate as an internal electron donor ([0033]). Advantageously, providing a succinate component, such as diethyl-2,3-diisopropyl succinate, provides polymers with improved and higher isotacticity values while providing a broad molecular weight distribution ([0003]-[0005]). T hus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a succinate component, such as diethyl-2,3-diisopropyl succinate , in the method of Klendworth in order to provide a Ziegler-Natta catalyst system that provides polymers with improved and higher isotacticity values while providing a broad molecular weight distribution as taught by Kong. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klendworth et al. (US20100069586A1) in view of Kong et al. (US020230143086A1) , with evidentiary support provided by Chemical Book , ( 2-isopropyl-2-(1-methylbutyl)-1,3-dimethoxypropane ) . Regarding claim 9 , Klendworth in view of Kong teaches the method of claim 1 and the claim further requires “the one or more electron donor comprises 2-isopropyl-2-(1-methylbutly)-1,3-dimethoxypropane” to which Klendworth is silent. 0 2894330 Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 1 . Chemical Book synonym list showing the equivalence of 2-isopropyl 2-isopentyl dimethoxy propane and 2-isopropyl-2- (1-methylbutyl)-1,3-dimethoxypropane. Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 1 . Chemical Book synonym list showing the equivalence of 2-isopropyl 2-isopentyl dimethoxy propane and 2-isopropyl-2- (1-methylbutyl)-1,3-dimethoxypropane. Kong teaches a catalyst component and method of preparation where the catalyst comprises magnesium, titanium, halide, and internal electron donor compounds comprising di al kylurea, malonate, succinate, and 1,3-diether (Abstract). Kong teaches the diether compounds can include 2-isopropyl-2-isopentyl dimethoxy propane ([0015]) while teaching an example using 2-isopropyl 2-isopentyl dimethoxy propane as an internal electron donor ([0033]). Skilled artisans will understand t he compound 2-isopropyl 2-isopentyl dimethoxy propane is a synonym for 2-isopropyl-2- (1-methylbutyl)-1,3-dimethoxypropane , as evidenced by Chemical Book, that teaches 2-Isopentyl-2-isopropyl-1,3-dimethoxypropane is a known synonym of 2-isopropyl-2-(1-methylbutyl)-1,3-dimethoxypropane (Pg. 1, Synonym List). Advantageously , providing a diether component, such as 2- i sopentyl-2-isopropyl-1,3-dimethoxypropan e , provides polymers with improved and higher isotacticity values while providing a broad molecular weight distribution ([0003]-[0005]). T hus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a diether component, such as 2- i sopentyl-2-isopropyl-1,3-dimethoxypropan e, in the method of Klendworth in order to provide a Ziegler-Natta catalyst system that provides polymers with improved and higher isotacticity values while providing a broad molecular weight distribution as taught by Kong. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kumar et al. (J. Mol. Cat. A, Chemical 2007, 272, 53–56): Kumar teaches a Ziegler- Natta catalyst system that can be used for olefin polymerization (Abstract; Title; Pg. 54, right col.). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Jordan Wayne Taylor whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9895 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 5 PM EST; Second Fridays Off . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Sally A. Merkling can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6297 . 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. /JORDAN W TAYLOR/ Examiner, Art Unit 1738