DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-14 in the reply filed on July 21, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, please replace “tertbutyl” with “tert-butyl”.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, delete “NCA”. Alternatively, one may replace “the NCA activator is” with “the activator is a salt of a non-coordinating (NCA) anion”.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, delete “NCA”. Alternatively, one may replace “the NCA activator is” with “the activator is a salt of a non-coordinating (NCA) anion”.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, please replace “aluminum of the” with “aluminum of an”.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, please replace “the transition” with “a transition”.
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, 2, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Richter et al. (Inorganica Chimica Acta 2018, 475, 18-27).
Scheme 8 of Richter et al. discloses a series of unbridged guaiazulenyl titanium and zirconium complexes 7 - 10, shown below, left. Scheme 9 discloses structures of rac- and meso- bisguaiazulenyl zirconium dichloride, shown below, right.
PNG
media_image1.png
178
356
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
148
162
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richter et al. (Inorganica Chimica Acta 2018, 475, 18-27) in view of Sugano et al. (US 6,252,097).
The discussion of the disclosure of the prior art from the preceding paragraph is incorporated here by reference. Richter et al. contemplates use of inventive metal complexes for preparation of olefin catalyst, but reference does not disclose further information. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to consult relevant art, such as Sugano et al. which teaches structurally similar azulenyl-based metallocene catalysts. Prior art at columns 41-45 teaches that catalysts contain aluminoxane activator or ionic non-coordinating activator, including those derived from triphenyl carbonium compounds (col. 44, line 39). A ratio of transition metal compound to activator lies in a range of 1/10 to 1/104 (col. 42, line 32). Catalysts may also be supported on an inorganic oxide carrier such as silica, alumina, or zirconia (col. 45, line 37). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention of Sugano et al. using the metal complexes of Richter et al., and the person of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the combination of teachings to work with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 3-5 and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Richter et al. does not teach the bridged catalyst compound of instant claims nor does it teach compounds containing a guaiazulene-based catalyst compound having no double bonds in the seven-membered ring.
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 September 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights