DETAILED ACTION Status of Application This action is responsive to national-stage application filed 09/15/2023. The concurrently filed preliminary amendment having been entered, claims 1-14 are currently pending and under examination herein. 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. However, 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 a 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. Information Disclosure Statement(s) The information disclosure statement (s) (IDS) accompanying the application papers is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609, and therefore the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits. Initialed copies of the IDS are included with the mailing/transmittal of this Office action. Objection – Drawings The drawings are objected to because where, as here, the drawings consist of a single drawing view, the view must not be numbered and the abbreviation “FIG” must not appear. See 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1). A corrected drawing sheet in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) is required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Objection – Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: all references to “Figure 1” (see, e.g., [0010], [0060]) should be amended to refer to –The figure — so as to agree with the replacement drawing sheet required supra . Claim Interpretation With respect to claims 1-14, the Office is broadly construing the term “granular catalyst composition” to mean a granular composition that is made up of particles, in accordance with the description at, e.g., paragraph [0031] of the as-filed specification. With respect to claims 1, 2 and 11, the Office is construing the term “substantial surface area [or areas]” to mean that the amount of support material surface area that is exposed is sufficient to permit the granular catalyst composition to effectively initiate and catalyze polymerization of olefinic monomers and to r educe excessive catalyst activity when the granular catalyst composition is introduced in the polymerization reactor , in accordance with the description at, e.g., paragraph s [0032] and [003 3 ] of the as-filed specification. Objection – Claims Claims 1 and 2 are objected to because of the following informalities: referring lines 17 and 18, respectively, “discreet” should read –discrete-- (as in lines 18 and 19 of respective claims). Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: referring to line 1, “is” should presumabl y read –in-- (i.e., “invention [[is]] in claim 1”; cf . claims 6-12). Claims 5-12 are objected to because of the following informalities: referring to line 1 of each claim, it is recommended that “invention” be amended to –composition-- (or –granular catalyst composition--) to clarify the category of invention to which each claim is directed. Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: omission of –weight percent—after “75” in line 3. Appropriate correction of the aforementioned claims is required. Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.— The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-14 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. Regarding Claims 1 , 2 and 1 2 ; claims 1 and 2 each recite a composition that comprises: a) between 20 and 75 weight percent of a support material; b) between 25 and 80 weight percent of an activator … and c) a catalyst component … wherein the total weight percentage of the support material, activator and catalyst equals 100 percent without regard to the weight of other components, if any , in the composition …. Claim 12 s imilarly recites that the granular catalyst composition comprises from 2 to 20 weight percent catalyst component, from 30 to 75 [weight percent] activator and from 25 to 70 weight percent support material, wherein the total weight percentage of the support material, activator and catalyst equals 100 percent without regard to the weight of other components, if any, in the composition . As such, the sum of components a), b) and c) in each claim must equal 100 percent (regardless of other compositional components), and it i s not possible to meet this requirement where the composition comprises 75 wt. % of a support material (hence, 25 wt. % of an activator) or 80 wt. % or an activator (hence, 20 wt. % of a support material) in claim 1 or 2; or where the composition comprises 7 5 wt. % of a n activator (hence, 25 wt. % support material ) or 3 0 wt. % or an activator (hence, 7 0 wt. % of support material) in claim 12, as selection of such proportions of support material and activator would preclude inclusion of the catalyst component, even though the latter is a requisite compositional component of each claim . As such, claims 1, 2 and 12 are internally contradictory , thus rendering their scope indefinite. Dependent claims 4-14 inherit the indefiniteness ascribed to parent claim 1 supra . Regarding Claim 3, the term “substantial” in the limitation “absence of substantial support material” (see line 5) is ambiguous as it is not clear from the antecedent disclosure what “substantial” means in terms of amount(s) of support material that may be permissibly present during claimed step a). In this regard, the most relevant description purports to define "absence of substantial support material" to mean “ that the solution or suspension does not contain enough support material to interfere substantially with forming the unique morphology of the inventive catalyst materials … ” (see [0041] of as-filed specification) . Thus, the description uses a form of the very word it purports to define (“substantial”) in the definition, which in turn leads to uncertainty as to what constitutes “substantial[ ly ]” interference with the morphology-forming step. As the provided definition is itself nebulous, the overall scope of claim 3 is not ascertainable with reasonable certainty. Common Ownership Notice 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. Claim Rejections – 35 U . S . C . 102/103 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. Claims 1-3, 5, 7-11 , and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Cook, et al (WO 03/102037 A1) (‘Cook’). Regarding Claims 1-3 and 11, reference to Cook relates to a solid, particulated , heterogeneous catalyst composition comprising a Ziegler-Natta portion and a metallocene portion prepared by the technique of spray drying (p. 1, lines 8-10). Cook generally discloses that the catalyst composition is prepared by a process comprising forming a mixture comprising: forming a mixture comprising: a) a Group 4 metallocene compound; b) a solid Group 4 metal-magnesium halide complex comprising moieties of at least magnesium, a Group 4 transition metal, and a halide; c) finely divided inert filler, d) an optional binder capable of joining components a) and b) and optionally c) into a particulated , heterogeneous, agg l omerate without adversely affecting the catalytic properties thereof; and e) an organic, vol a tile, liquid diluent; and spray drying the mixture to remove diluent and leave the product in the form of solid, agg l omerated particles (p. 1, line 29 – p. 2, lines 6). In specific embodiments (see pp. 30-31, Example 1 and Fig. 1) Cook describes a particulated (i.e., granular) heter o geneous catalyst composition comprising a silica support and a MAO activator approximately in a 1:0.66 ratio and a metallocene catalyst. Cook indicates that the MAO is found to be separate from the silica particles ( p. 23, ll. 29-33: “ the binder (e.g., MAO) may also assist agg l omeration of the components of the present heterogeneous catalyst composition into a particle. By the term "heterogeneous" is meant that identifiable regions comprising the metallocene combined with the solid, Group 4 metal- magnesium halide composition remain in the resulting spray dried catalyst composition after catalyst formation. Such regions are separated by , or dispersed between , regions or particles of the filler (emphasis added) ” ; and p. 24, lines 29-33: “ metallocene, solid Group 4 metal- magnesium halide complex, and optional binder are believed to be incorporated into the solid, heterogeneous catalyst composition in the form of occlusions of the same located interfacially or interstitially between agglomerates of the filler , which are optionally bound into the agglomerate particles through use of the same or a different binder (emphasis added) ” ). With respect to claims 1, 2 and 11, although Cook does not explicitly teach that an activator is (ii) attached to the support material in zones such that substantial surface areas of both the support material and the activator remain exposed , Cook does demonstrate that the described particulated , heterogeneous catalyst composition effectively initiate s and catalyze s polymerization of olefinic monomers (see p. 33), which comports with the Applicant’s definition of “substantial surface area [or areas] ” ( cf ., Spec ., [0033]). As such, it is plausible to infer that Cook implicitly teaches feature (ii) of the claimed granular catalyst composition. Accordingly, the burden properly shifts to A pplicant to show that the property or characteristic recited in the claims represents an unobvious difference. In re Best , 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). With respect to claim 3, Cook in Example 1 describes a catalyst preparation process of making a particulated heter o geneous catalyst composition comprising a silica support and a MAO activator . As disclosed (see p. 31), the process comprises steps of: ( I) mixing a catalyst component ( bis(n- butylcyclopentadienyl ) Zr dichloride) and an activator (MMAO) to form a (hexane) slurry, (II) adding to the slurry a support material (fumed silica ) and (III) subjecting the resulting mixture to spray drying. Disclosed steps (I), (II) and (III) are seen to correspond to claimed steps a), b) and c), respectively , and Cook further characterizes the obtained product as particles “ found to be solid, heterogeneous aggregates containing identifiable silica particles with a mixture of the remaining components, Group 4 metal- magnesium solid complex, metallocene and MMAO, interspersed in the interstices between silica particles ” (p. 31, ll. 14-17; emphasis added). Regarding claim 10, it is acknowledged that Cook does not express the amount of the exposed surface area of particles in the granular composition that is activator and the amount of the exposed surface area of particles that is support material in terms of numerical percentages as claimed . Nevertheless, as pointed out above, the catalyst composition disclosed by Cook is made by substantially the same process as the Applicant’s catalyst composition. Examiner therefore takes the position that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have expected that the physical and morphological properties of the disclosed catalyst composition would not be materially different from th os e of the catalyst composition defined in claim 10 . As per MPEP 2112, “[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product . Whether the rejection is based on inherency under 35 U.S.C. 102, on prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same…” as that required with respect to product-by-process claims. In re Fitzgerald , 205 USPQ 594, 596 (CCPA 1980). Further, when there is sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not. In re Spada , 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The burden here is therefore shifted to A pplicant to prove that the characteristics used to define the catalyst compos i tion of the instant application would not be present in the catalyst composition disclosed by C ook . Regarding Claims 5 and 7, Cook discloses the invention in claim 1 as discussed above. Cook further discloses wherein the catalyst comprises a metallocene catalyst (see Example 1); and wherein the catalyst comprising titanium, zirconium or hafnium (see page 6, lines 3-4). Regarding Claim 8, Cook discloses the invention in claim 1 as discussed above. Cook further discloses wherein the activator comprises an alumoxane compound ( viz ., MMAO; see Example 1 and p. 24, lines 8-10: “ Alumoxanes are preferred binders in as much as they also may participate as cocatalyst in the ultimate polymerization …”). Regarding Claim 9, Cook discloses the invention in claim 1 as discussed above. Cook further discloses wherein the support material comprises a silicate (e.g., fumed silica; see Example 1 and p. 22, lines 4-23). Regarding Claims 13-14, Cook discloses the catalyst composition of claim 1 as discussed above. Cook further discloses the polymerization of ethylene and 1-hexene in the presence of such catalyst composition (see p. 33 and p. 26, lines 17-20). Pertinent Art The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Munro et al (US 2021/0230317 A1) is cited as representative of analogous art, i.e., art relating to spray-dried Ziegler-Natta catalyst systems (note Examples). The citation does not teach the present invention. Conclusion Claims 4, 6 and 12, as best understood, are deemed free of the prior art. However, in view of the rejections under 35 USC 112 and informality objections, no claims are in condition for allowance at this time. Correspondence Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Examiner F. M. Teskin whose telephone number is (571) 272 1116. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM - 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, Robert Jones , can be reached at (571) 27 0 -77 33 . The appropriate 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, 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. 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form. /FRED M TESKIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762 / FMTeskin / 04-04-26 .