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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112 Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In claim 1, lines 2-3, it is unclear how merely “contacting” the branched monoolefin(s) with an alkyl aluminum catalyst gives rise to an oligomer product comprising C 20 olefin dimers. That is, does the contacting step involve an oligomerization step? In claim 1, lines 3-4, it is unclear whether the C 20 olefin dimer (having only two monomeric units) defines the “oligomer” product. In claim 1, line 8, there is no express antecedent basis for a “ C 20+ “ olefin portion. In claim 1, line 9, it is unclear whether the saturated C 20 hydrocarbons define the “ polyalphaolefin ” . In claim 1, line 9, given the plural “polyalphaolefins” and “hydrocarbons” , it is unclear whether more than one polyalphaolefin is formed which comprises more than one saturated hydrocarbon. In claim 13, it is unclear whether the composition comprising at least one branched C 10 monoolefin and the alkyl aluminum catalyst per claim 1 is further contacted with the recited effluent stream . In claim 13, it is unclear how the alkyl aluminum compound distinguishes over the alkyl aluminum catalyst per claim 1. In claim 13, it is unclear whether the resultant polyalphaolefin would contain polymerized ethylene units. In claim 13, lines 4-6, it is unclear how contacting components 1), 2) and optionally 3) forms an effluent stream comprising 1-hexene, 1-octene , branched C 10 monoolefin (s) or C 14 monoolefin ( s ). In claim 15, given the plural “polyalphaolefins”, it is unclear whether more than one polyalphaolefin is formed. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a1) and (a2) as being anticipated by US 2018/0016204 (Coffin) . As to claim 15, Coffin discloses [0274-0275] compositions comprising hydrogenated olefin oligomers /dimers from at least one branched C 10 olefin monomers selected from i) 3-propyl-1-heptene, ii) 4-ethyl-1-octene or iii) 5-methyl-1-nonene with 2-butyl-1-hexene ( meets Applicants’ polyalphaolefins which are hydrogenated olefin oligomers /dimers from the same branched C 10 olefin monomers ). 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. Claim s 1- 6, 11 , 12 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0016204 (Coffin) described hereinabove. As to claim 1, Coffin discloses a process for forming a polyalphaolefin comprising saturated C20 hydrocarbons comprising: (i) contacting ( meets Applicants’ contacting step ) a composition comprising at least one branched C 10 olefin monomer selected from i) 3-propyl-1-heptene, ii) 4-ethyl-1-octene, iii) 5-methyl-1-nonene and iv) 2-butyl-1-hexene [0040]/Table 2 ( meets Applicants’ branched C 10 olefin monomer ) with a catalyst inclusive of an alkyl aluminum compound [0067] ( meets Applicants’ alkyl aluminum catalyst ) to produce an oligomer product comprising unreacted branched C 10 olefin monomers and C 20 olefin oligomers/dimers [0037] ( meets Applicants’ oligomer product ); (ii) separating /isolating ( meets Applicants’ separating step ) the olefin monomers from the olefin oligomers/dimers [0037]/[0057] ; and (iii) hydrogenating the olefin oligomers/dimers to form the polyalphaolefin ( meets Applicants’ polyalphaolefin ) (e.g., abstract, [0003-0005], [0011], [0037-0044], [0052], examples, claims). In essence, Coffin differs from claim 1 in not expressly setting forth a working example wherein an alkyl aluminum catalyst is used. Given that Coffin clearly teaches alkyl aluminum compound s as alternative catalysts [00 67], it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use said alkyl aluminum compound as the catalyst with the reasonable expectation of success. As to claim 2, hydrogenation of Coffin’s branched C 10 olefin monomer selected from i) 3-propyl-1-heptene, ii) 4-ethyl-1-octene, iii) 5-methyl-1-nonene and iv) 2-butyl-1-hexene would necessarily produce the claimed C 20 hydrocarbons. As to claim 3, oligomerization of Coffin’s branched C 10 olefin monomer selected from i) 3-propyl-1-heptene, ii) 4-ethyl-1-octene, iii) 5-methyl-1-nonene and iv) 2-butyl-1-hexene would necessarily produce the claimed C 20 olefin dimers. As to claims 4 and 16, Coffin discloses [0055] that the hydrogenated olefin oligomers can have a kinematic viscosity of from 1.8 cSt to 2.2 cSt at 100°C. Thus, it would have been within the purview of Coffin’s inventive disclosure, and obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, to produce hydrogenated olefin oligomers governed by a kinematic viscosity as presently claimed in accordance with the desired properties. As to claims 5 and 17, given that kinematic viscosity refers to the ratio of viscosity to density [0054], it would be expected that Coffin’s hydrogenated olefin oligomers having kinematic viscosity as presently claimed would also meet the presently claimed density. As to claims 6 and 18, it is within the purview of Coffin’s inventive disclosure [0183] to further include pour point depressants. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to formulate a composition of hydrogenated olefin oligomers per Coffin having a desired pour point (inclusive of that presently claimed) in accordance with the ultimate properties desired. As to claim 11 , it is within the purview of Coffin’s inventive disclosure, and obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, to recycle the unreacted olefin monomers to the reaction zone [0162]. As to claim 12, it is within the purview of Coffin’s inventive disclosure, and obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, to use a composition comprising i) at least 10 mol% 3-propyl-1-heptene (meets Applicants’ corresponding at least 8 mol%), ii) at least 7 mol% 4-ethyl-1-octene (meets Applicants’ corresponding at least 6 mol%), iii) at least 24 mol% 5-methyl-1-nonene (meets Applicants’ corresponding at least 20 mol%), and iv) at least 3 mol% 2-butyl-1-hexene (meets Applicants’ corresponding at least 3 mol%) [0041]. Claims 7 and 19 have not been included in the above rejection because Coffin neither describes thermal conductivity or specific heat nor provides any guidance for formulating polyalphaolefins governed by said claimed features. Claims 8-10 and 20 have not been included in the above rejection because Coffin does not disclose or suggest producing a C 20 olefin portion having a high content of C 20 olefin dimer as presently claimed. Claim s 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0016204 (Coffin) described hereinabove in view of US 2018/0127332 (Kreischer). As to claims 13 and 14, Coffin discloses using branched C 10 olefin monomers obtained from ethylene oligomerization [0196]/[0208]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use any monomer feedstock obtained from ethylene oligomerization such as that disclosed by Kreischer (e.g., claim 14) ( meets that presently claimed) with the reasonable expectation of success. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claims 1-6 and 11-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims 7, 10 and 14-16 of U.S. Patent No. 10,647,626 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims are directed to similarly-constituted polyalphaolefins produced from a similar process . Claims 15-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims 7-12 of U.S. Patent No. 10,927,052 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims are directed to similarly-constituted polyalphaolefins . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Ana L Woodward whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1082 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8am-5pm . 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 Heidi Kelley can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-1831 . 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. /ANA L. WOODWARD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765