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 Interpretation Several claims use the term “the general formula” to define certain claimed compounds (e.g., claim 3 ). Based on at least [0018] of the instant specification, the various R groups described in these “general formulas” have been interpreted as including substituted or non-substituted versions of the R groups as defined in each claim. 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. (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. Claims 1- 7, 10- 12, and 28 - 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Spencer (U . S . Pat. Publ’n No. 2009/0171044) (“Spencer”) . Regarding claim 1 , Spencer discloses a method for producing a solid catalyst component for the polymerization of olefins (abstract ; [0042]- [0045] ; [0056]-[006 5 ] ) . The method includes reacting an alkoxymagnesium compound ( [0042]- [0045] ; [0024]) with one or more internal electron donors ([0054]) and then reacting with a halogen-containing titanium compound ( [0045]- [00 4 6]), to obtain to obtain a solid catalyst component ([0045]-[0048]; [0054]). The internal electron donors may include an acyl halide , such as phthaloyl dichloride ([0048]) , and an alkanol , such as methanol or ethanol ([0048]). Spencer discloses that the magnesium catalyst support may also be reacted with a halogenating agent, such as thionyl chloride ([0043]; [0042]-[0045]; [0056]-[006 5 ]). Regarding claim 2 , Spencer further discloses a step of treating the initial reaction product with tetravalent titanium halide ([0045]-[0046]; the catalyst support can be treated with a second titanium compound, which may be the same compound, a titanium tetrachloride) . Regarding claim 3 , Spencer discloses that the alkoxymagnesium compound is of the general formula R 1 OMgOR 2 , wherein R 1 and R 2 are independently selected from aliphatic, aromatic, alicyclic, heteroaliphatic , heteroaromatic, or heteroalicyclic groups having 1 to 20 carbon atoms ([0024]; may be ethoxy magnesium, C 2 H 5 OMgOC 2 H 5 ) . Regarding claim 4 , Spencer discloses that the alkoxymagnesium compound is of the general formula R 1 OMgX, wherein R 1 is selected from aliphatic, aromatic, alicyclic, heteroaliphatic , heteroaromatic, or heteroalicyclic groups having 1 to 20 carbon atoms, and wherein X is a halogen ([0024]; may be ethoxy magnesium chloride, C 2 H 5 OMgCl ) . Regarding claim 5 , Spencer discloses that the alkoxymagnesium compound comprises a dialkoxy magnesium compound ([0024]; may be ethoxy magnesium, C 2 H 5 OMgOC 2 H 5 ) . Regarding claim 6 , Spencer discloses that the acyl halide is of the general formula RCOX, wherein R is a linear or branched alkyl or aromatic having 1 to 20 carbon atoms, and wherein X is halogen ([0048]; may be phthaloyl dichloride). Regarding claim 7 , Spencer discloses that the acyl halide comprises phthaloyl chloride ([0048]; may be phthaloyl dichloride; synonym of phthaloyl chloride) . Regarding claim 10 , Spencer discloses the titanium compound has the general formula TiX n (OR) 4-n , wherein X is a halogen atom, wherein R is a linear or branched alkyl group having 1 to 20 carbon atoms, and wherein n is an integer from 1 to 4 ([0046]) . Regarding claim 11 , Spencer discloses that R is a linear or branched alkyl group having 1 to 4 carbon atoms ([0046]; may be Ti(OCH 3 )Cl 3 ) . Regarding claim 12 , Spencer discloses that the titanium compound comprises titanium tetrachloride ([0046]) . Regarding claim 28 , Spencer discloses a n olefin polymerization catalyst (abstract; [0042]-[0045]; [0056]-[0064]). As set forth above, Spencer discloses a method for producing a solid catalyst component for the polymerization of olefins (abstract; [0042]-[0045]; [0056]-[0064]). The method includes reacting an alkoxymagnesium compound ([0042]-[0045]; [0024]) with one or more internal electron donors ([0054]) and then reacting with a halogen-containing titanium compound ([0045]-[0046]), to obtain to obtain a solid catalyst component ([0045]-[0048]; [0054]). The internal electron donors may include an acyl halide , such as phthaloyl dichloride ([0048]) , and an alkanol , such as methanol or ethanol ([0048]). Spencer discloses that the magnesium catalyst support may also be reacted with a halogenating agent, such as thionyl chloride ([0043]; [0042]-[0045]; [0056]-[0064]). Spencer further discloses that the catalyst is combined with an organoaluminum compound represented by the general formula AlR n X 3-n , wherein R is a linear or branched alkyl or aromatic having 1-10 carbon atoms, wherein X is halogen, and wherein n is an integer value meeting the condition of 1<n≤3 ([0080]-[0090]; [0084]) ; and one or more external electron donors ([0091]-[0094]; [0092]). Regarding claim 29 , Spencer discloses that the organoaluminum compound comprises one or more compounds selected from triethylaluminum , diethylaluminum chloride, triisobutylaluminum , diethylaluminum bromide, trioctylaluminum , and diethylaluminum hydride ([0087]) . Regarding claim 30 , Spencer discloses that the organoaluminum compound comprises one or more compounds selected from triethylaluminum and triisobutylaluminum ([0087]) . Regarding claim 31 , Spencer discloses that the one or more external electron donors comprises an organosilicon compound ([0091]-[0092]) . Regarding claim 32 , Spencer discloses that the one or more external electron donors comprises an aminosilane compound ([0094]) . Regarding claim 33 , Spencer discloses that t he molar ratio of the one or more external electron donors per mole of the organoaluminum compound is less than about 1.0 ([0093]; discloses molar ratio of organoaluminum to organosilicon of preferably 7 to 35; thus, mole ratio of organosilicon compound to organoaluminum compound is preferably 0.028 to 0.14) . Regarding claim 3 4 , Spencer discloses that the molar ratio of the one or more external electron donors to organoaluminum compound is less than about 0.5 ([0093]; discloses molar ratio of organoaluminum to organosilicon of preferably 7 to 35; thus, mole ratio of organosilicon compound to organoaluminum compound is preferably 0.028 to 0.14) . Regarding claim 35 , Spencer discloses that the molar ratio of organoaluminium compound to titanium in the solid catalyst component is less than about 1000 ([0090]; preferably about 10 to 700) . 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. 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 13-22 and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spencer (U.S. Pat. Publ’n No. 2009/0171044) (“Spencer”), Regarding claim 13 , Spencer discloses a method for producing a solid catalyst component for the polymerization of olefins (abstract; [0042]-[0045]; [0056]-[0064]). The method includes reacting an alkoxymagnesium compound ([0042]-[0045]; [0024]) with one or more internal electron donors ([0054]) and an organohalide or organophosphorous compound ([0028] , epichlorohydrin ; [0045]; [0056]-[0064] ; [0040]-[0042], phosphate ester ) and then reacting with a halogen-containing titanium compound ([0045]-[0046]), to obtain to obtain a solid catalyst component ([0045]-[0048]; [0054]-[0064]). The internal electron donors may include an acyl halide , such as phthaloyl dichloride ([0048]) , and an alkanol , such as methanol or ethanol ([0048]). Spencer discloses that the magnesium catalyst support may also be reacted with a halogenating agent, such as thionyl chloride ([0043]; [0042]-[0045]; [0056]-[0064]). Spencer does not explicitly disclose that that a first reaction product from the alkoxymagnesium compound, acyl halide, and alkanol is formed, which is then reacted with the organohalide to form a second reaction product, which is then reacted with the halogen-containing titanium compound. However, the reference does suggest that the specific sequence of formation steps is not critical and that several alternatives sequences may be used, including sequential or simultaneous combinations of reactants ( [0045]; [0054]-[00 66]; [0079]). For example, Spencer suggests that the internal electron donors may be added together with the magnesium support, rather than after it has been formed ([0065]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to form a first reaction product from the alkoxymagnesium compound, acyl halide, and alkanol is formed, which is then reacted with the organohalide to form a second reaction product, which is then reacted with the halogen-containing titanium compound, since doing so amounts to nothing more than a selection of a particular sequence of adding reactants which is generally suggested by Spencer. See In re Burhans , 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (C . C . P . A . 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (C . C . P . A . 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.). Regarding claim 14 , Spencer further discloses a step of treating reaction product (C) with tetravalent titanium halide ([0045]-[0046]; [0056]-[0064]). Regarding claim 15 , Spencer discloses that the organohalide compound has the general formula RX, wherein R is a linear or branched alkyl or aromatic having 1 to 20 carbon atoms, and wherein X is halogen ([0028]). Regarding claim 16 , Spencer discloses that the organohalide compound comprises epichlorohydrin ([0028]). Regarding claim 17 , Spencer discloses that the organophosphorus compound comprises phosphoryl chloride and derivatives thereof ([0040]-[0041]; may contain phosphate ester s , which are widely known derivative s of phosphoryl chloride) . Regarding claim 18 , Spencer discloses that the alkoxymagnesium compound is of the general formula R 1 OMgOR 2 , wherein R 1 and R 2 are independently selected from aliphatic, aromatic, alicyclic, heteroaliphatic , heteroaromatic, or heteroalicyclic groups having 1 to 20 carbon atoms ([0024]; may be ethoxy magnesium, C 2 H 5 OMgOC 2 H 5 ) . Regarding claim 19 , Spencer discloses that the alkoxymagnesium compound is of the general formula R 1 OMgX, wherein R 1 is selected from aliphatic, aromatic, alicyclic, heteroaliphatic , heteroaromatic, or heteroalicyclic groups having 1 to 20 carbon atoms, and wherein X is a halogen ([0024]; may be ethoxy magnesium chloride, C 2 H 5 OMgCl ). Regarding claim 20 , Spencer discloses that the alkoxymagnesium compound comprises a dialkoxy magnesium compound ([0024]; may be ethoxy magnesium, C 2 H 5 OMgOC 2 H 5 ) . Regarding claim 21 , Spencer discloses that the acyl halide is of the general formula RCOX, wherein R is a linear or branched alkyl or aromatic having 1 to 20 carbon atoms, and wherein X is halogen ([0048]; may be phthaloyl dichloride). Regarding claim 22 , Spencer discloses the acyl halide comprises phthaloyl chloride ([0048]; may be phthaloyl dichloride; synonym of phthaloyl chloride). Regarding claim 25 , Spencer discloses the titanium compound has the general formula TiX n (OR) 4-n , wherein X is a halogen atom, wherein R is a linear or branched alkyl group having 1 to 20 carbon atoms, and wherein n is an integer from 1 to 4 ([0046]). Regarding claim 26 , Spencer discloses that R is a linear or branched alkyl group having 1 to 4 carbon atoms ([0046]; may be Ti(OCH 3 )Cl 3 ). Regarding claim 27 , Spencer discloses that the titanium compound comprises titanium tetrachloride ([0046]). Claims 8 , 9 , 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spencer (U.S. Pat. Publ’n No. 2009/0171044) (“Spencer”), as applied to the claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Benedikter et al. (U.S. Pat. 3,629,212). Regarding claim s 8 , 9 , 23, and 24 , Spencer discloses that the magnesium catalyst support may also be reacted with a halogenating agent, such as thionyl chloride ([0043];[[0056]-[0064]). The reference does not disclose, however, that the halogenating agent may be a sulfinyl chloride having the general formula R−S(=O)Cl, wherein R is a linear or branched alkyl or aromatic having 1 to 20 carbon atoms , or a sulfonyl chloride having the general formula R–(O=)S(=O)Cl, wherein R is a linear or branched alkyl or aromatic having 1 to 20 carbon atoms . Benedikter discloses Ziegler-type catalysts for use in the production of polymers (abstract). Benedikter discloses that sulfur-containing halogenating agents are particularly beneficial as activating additives or promoters (abstract; C5/L9-41). In addition to thionyl chloride, Benedikter teaches that sulfur compounds of the general formula R-SO 2 -X or R-SO-X, wherein X is a halogen (such as chlori ne) and R may be an alkyl having between 1 and 15,000 carbon atoms, a cycloalkyl having 4 to 22 carbon atoms, or an aryl having between 6 to 22 carbon atoms, may also be used (C5/L9-41) . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute the halogenating agent, such as thionyl chloride, in the method of Spencer with an alkyl, cycloalkyl, or aryl sulfonyl chloride or an alkyl, cycloalkyl, or aryl sulfinyl chloride, as suggested by Benedikter , since doing so amounts to nothing more than the simple substitution of one known halogenating agent for a Ziegler-type catalyst for another to obtain a predictable result. 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 1-7, 10-14, 17-22, and 25- 2 7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4-1 1 of copending Application No. 18/597,519 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the reference application generally represent narrower method limitations from those in the instant application. Claim s 1 , 8, and 9 of the reference application reads on claims 1, 2, 13, and 14 of the instant application. Claim s 4 and 5 of the reference application reads on claims 6, 7, 21, and 22 of the instant application. Claims 6 and 7 of the reference application read on claims 3-5 and 18-20 of the instant application. Claim 10 of the reference application reads on claim 17 of the instant application. Claim 11 of the reference application reads on claim s 10 -12 and 25-27 Claims 15 and 16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4- 11 of copending Application No. 18/597,519 (reference application) , as set forth above, and further in view of Spencer (U.S. Pat. Publ’n No. 2009/0171044) (“Spencer”) . While the claims of the reference application state that an organohalide compound is included in the reaction, the claims of the reference application do not explicitly teach that the organohalide compound has the general formula RX, wherein R is a linear or branched alkyl or aromatic having 1 to 20 carbon atoms, and wherein X is halogen , or that the organohalide compound is epichlorohydrin. Spencer discloses a method for producing a solid catalyst component for the polymerization of olefins (abstract; [0042]-[0045]; [0056]-[0064]). The method includes reacting an alkoxymagnesium compound ([0042]-[0045]; [0024]) with one or more internal electron donors ([0054]) and an organohalide or organophosphorous compound ([0028], epichlorohydrin; [0045]; [0056]-[0064]; [0040]-[0042], phosphate ester) and then reacting with a halogen-containing titanium compound ([0045]-[0046]), to obtain to obtain a solid catalyst component ([0045]-[0048]; [0054]-[0064]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose epichlorohydrin as the organohalide of the reference application, as suggested by Spencer, since doing so amounts to nothing more than the selection of a known organohalide compound for use in a process of forming a catalyst for the polymerization of olefins. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT KATHERINE M ZALASKY MCDONALD whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7064 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F, 9:00 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT JACOB BETIT can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-4075 . 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. /KATHERINE ZALASKY MCDONALD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 6221