Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/576,716

HIGHLY STRUCTURED, HIGH VINYLIDENE PROPYLENE OLIGOMER AND METHOD OF MAKING

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Jan 04, 2024
Examiner
CHONG, JASON Y
Art Unit
1772
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Chevron U S A Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allow Rate
285 granted / 387 resolved
+8.6% vs TC avg
Strong +17% interview lift
Without
With
+17.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
27 currently pending
Career history
414
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
46.4%
+6.4% vs TC avg
§102
12.1%
-27.9% vs TC avg
§112
31.0%
-9.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 387 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . Status of Claims Claims 1-18 are pending. This is the first office action on the merits. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 applicant regards as his invention. Claims 2, 7-10, and 12 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. Claims 2, 7, and 12 are indefinite for reciting “formula (I)”: CH2=CH(CH3)-(CH2-CH(CH3))n-CH2-CH2-CH2 Specifically, the secondary carbon (C at the 2-position) associated with the vinylidene appears to be bonded with (i) CH2= via a double bond, (ii) H, (iii) CH3, and (iii) (CH2-CH(CH3)), exceeding the maximum number (4) of valence electrons that can be shared. Furthermore, the terminal carbon that is not associated with the vinylidene (C at the rightmost position in the formula) is attached with only one C and two H and, therefore, does not meet the valence electron balance. For the purpose of examination, “formula (I)” in the claims is interpreted as CH2=C(CH3)-(CH2-CH(CH3))n-CH2-CH2-CH3, such that (i) the secondary carbon (C at position #2) does not have the “H” constituent, and (ii) the terminal carbon on the opposite side has an additional “H” attached to it. Claims 8-10 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) by virtue of their dependency upon claim 7. 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bagheri et al. (US 6,043,401, cited IDS dated 01/04/2024). Regarding claim 1, Bagheri discloses a propylene oligomer composition comprising a propylene oligomer having a number average molecular weight Mn of about 300 to about 10,000 and a vinylidene content of more than 80%, wherein the composition comprises more than about 98% of the propylene oligomer (“1-olefin content”) (col. 4, lines 26-37; col. 9, lines 39-46). The vinylidene content and propylene oligomer content ranges taught by Bagher fall within the claimed ranges of “a vinylidene content of greater than about 70 mol%” and “about 70 wt% to 100 wt% of the propylene oligomer.” Bagheri does not explicitly disclose “a number average molecular weight Mn of about 200 to about 10,000.” However, the claimed range falls within the molecular weight Mn of about 300 to about 10,000 taught by Bagheri (col. 4, lines 26-37) and is, therefore, considered prima facie obvious. 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. Bagheri does not explicitly disclose that the composition comprises less than about 6 wt% of hydrogenated propylene oligomer. However, Bagheri is silent with regard to the presence of hydrogenated propylene oligomer. Thus, Bagheri is interpreted to suggest that the content of hydrogenated propylene oligomer in the composition is zero or close to zero. Alternatively, Bagheri teaches that the composition comprises >98% oligomer content (col. 9, lines 39-46), which suggests that the content of hydrogenated propylene oligomer is less than 2%. Regarding claim 2, the propylene oligomer with a vinylidene group (“poly(1-olefin)”), as taught by Bagheri (col. 4, lines 26-37), is considered to read on formula (I) in claim 2. While Bagheri does not explicitly teach “n = 0 to about 1000” with regard to the repeating unit “(CH2-CH(CH3))n,” the claimed invention and Bagheri teach essentially the same number average molecular weight and, therefore, it is reasonably expected that the oligomer of Bagheri has a similar number of the repeating unit as the claimed formula. Regarding claim 3, Bagheri discloses a vinylidene content of more than 80% (col. 4, lines 26-37). Regarding claim 4, the claimed Mn range of “about 250 to about 10,000” falls within the Mn range of about 300 to about 10,000 taught by Bagheri and is, therefore, considered prima facie obvious (col. 4, lines 26-37), Regarding claim 5, Bagheri does not explicitly disclose that the composition comprises less than about 6 wt% of hydrogenated propylene oligomer. However, Bagheri is silent with regard to the presence of hydrogenated propylene oligomer. Thus, Bagheri is interpreted to suggest that the content of hydrogenated propylene oligomer in the composition is zero or close to zero. Alternatively, Bagheri teaches that the composition comprises >98% oligomer content (col. 9, lines 39-46), which suggests that the content of hydrogenated propylene oligomer is less than 2%. Regarding claim 6, Bagheri discloses that the oligomer can be prepared from propylene as monomer, which suggest that the oligomer comprises 100% propylene (col. 4, lines 26-37; see Example 5). Regarding claims 7-9, Bagheri discloses a propylene oligomer having a number average molecular weight Mn of about 300 to about 10,000 and a vinylidene content of more than 80%, wherein the composition comprises more than about 98% of the propylene oligomer (“1-olefin content”) (col. 4, lines 26-37; col. 9, lines 39-46). The vinylidene content and propylene oligomer content ranges taught by Bagher fall within the claimed ranges of “a vinylidene content of greater than about 70 mol%” and “about 70 wt% to 100 wt% of the propylene oligomer” (claim 7). The vinylidene content taught by Bagheri also falls within “the vinylidene content of greater than about 80 mol%” (claim 8). Bagheri does not explicitly disclose “a number average molecular weight Mn of about 200 to about 10,000” (claim 7) or “about 250 to about 10,000” (claim 9). However, the claimed ranges fall within the molecular weight Mn of about 300 to about 10,000 taught by Bagheri (col. 4, lines 26-37) and are, therefore, considered prima facie obvious. The propylene oligomer with a vinylidene group (“poly(1-olefin)”), as taught by Bagheri (col. 4, lines 26-37), is considered to read on formula (I) in claim 7. While Bagheri does not explicitly teach “n = 0 to about 1000” with regard to the repeating unit “(CH2-CH(CH3))n,” the claimed invention and Bagheri teach essentially the same number average molecular weight and, therefore, it is reasonably expected that the oligomer of Bagheri has a similar number of the repeating unit as the claimed formula. Regarding claim 10, Bagheri does not explicitly disclose that the oligomer comprises less than about 6 wt% of hydrogenated propylene oligomer. However, Bagheri is silent with regard to the presence of hydrogenated propylene oligomer. Thus, Bagheri is interpreted to suggest that the content of hydrogenated propylene oligomer is zero or close to zero. Alternatively, Bagheri teaches that the oligomer comprises >98% oligomer content (col. 9, lines 39-46), which suggests that the content of hydrogenated propylene oligomer is less than 2%. Claims 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bagheri et al. (US 6,043,401, cited IDS dated 01/04/2024), in view of Crapo et al. (US 5,041,584). Regarding claim 11, Bagheri discloses a method for making a propylene oligomer comprising having a number average molecular weight Mn of about 300 to about 10,000 and a vinylidene content of more than 80%, the method comprising: contacting an unbridged metallocene complex comprising zirconium or hafnium metallocene and an aluminoxane cocatalyst with a propylene feedstock under oligomerization conditions (col. 3, lines 53-62; col. 4, lines 26-37; col. 7, line 61-col. 8, line 46). Particularly, the metallocene complex may comprise bis(cyclopentadienyl)zirconium dichloride, (H-Cp)2(Zr/Hf)Cl2 (col. 4, lines 9-13). Bagheri does not explicitly disclose “a number average molecular weight Mn of about 200 to about 10,000.” However, the claimed range falls within the molecular weight Mn of about 300 to about 10,000 taught by Bagheri (col. 4, lines 26-37) and is, therefore, considered prima facie obvious. Bagheri does not explicitly disclose that the composition comprises less than about 6 wt% of hydrogenated propylene oligomer. However, Bagheri is silent with regard to the presence of hydrogenated propylene oligomer. Thus, Bagheri is interpreted to suggest that the content of hydrogenated propylene oligomer in the composition is zero or close to zero. Alternatively, Bagheri teaches that the composition comprises >98% oligomer content (col. 9, lines 39-46), which suggests that the content of hydrogenated propylene oligomer is less than 2%. While Bagheri discloses the use of methylaluminoxane, the reference does not explicitly teach a modified methylaluminoxane (a modified aluminum oxide). However, Crapo discloses modified methylaluminoxanes containing C2 or higher alkyl groups (col. 3, line 66 – col. 4, line 21). Crapo discloses that the modified methylaluminoxanes are useful for olefin polymerization in conjunction with metallocene compounds, such as Cp2ZrCl2, and that they have higher solubility relative to conventional methylaluminoxane (col. 4, lines 42-68). Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bagheri by applying a modified methylaluminoxane as the aluminoxane cocatalyst, because (i) Bagheri teaches using methylaluminoxane as a cocatalyst to be used with a metallocene catalyst, (ii) Crapo discloses a modified methylaluminoxane, which has higher solubility than conventional methylaluminoxane, and (iii) this involves application of a known aluminoxane cocatalyst derivative to improve a known process. Regarding claim 12, the propylene oligomer with a vinylidene group (“poly(1-olefin)”), as taught by Bagheri (col. 4, lines 26-37), is considered to read on formula (I) in claim 2. While Bagheri does not explicitly teach “n = 0 to about 1000” with regard to the repeating unit “(CH2-CH(CH3))n,” the claimed invention and Bagheri teach essentially the same number average molecular weight and, therefore, it is reasonably expected that the oligomer of Bagheri has a similar number of the repeating unit as the claimed formula. Regarding claims 13 and 14, Bagher discloses that the metallocene may comprise unsubstituted or a lower-alkyl-substituted cyclopentadienyl (col. 7, line 65 – col. 8, line 1. Regarding claim 15, Crapo discloses that the modified methylaluminoxanes contain C2 or higher alkyl groups, where the methyl group accounts for 20-80% of the alkyl groups (col. 3, line 66 – col. 4, line 21). Thus, the claimed formula [(CH3)(1-m)RmAIO]n, wherein 0.02<m<0.50, and R is a C3 to C15 linear or branched alkyl group. Regarding claim 16, Bagheri discloses a vinylidene content of more than 80% (col. 4, lines 26-37). Regarding claim 17, the claimed Mn range of “about 250 to about 10,000” falls within the Mn range of about 300 to about 10,000 taught by Bagheri and is, therefore, considered prima facie obvious (col. 4, lines 26-37), Regarding claim 18, Bagheri discloses that the oligomer can be prepared from propylene as monomer, which suggest that the oligomer comprises 100% propylene (col. 4, lines 26-37; see Example 5). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON Y CHONG whose telephone number is (571)431-0694. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:30pm. 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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571)272-5954. 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. /JASON Y CHONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 04, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595422
CHEMICAL RECYCLING OF SOLVOLYSIS GLYCOL COLUMN BOTTOMS COPRODUCT STREAMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12583804
A Process Of Converting Methanol To Olefins
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12570910
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROCESSING PYROLYSIS OIL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12559445
Processes and Systems for Upgrading a Hydrocarbon-Containing Feed
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12540280
A PROCESS FOR MONITORING THE OPERATION OF HYDRODEOXYGENATION OF A FEEDSTOCK
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
74%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+17.2%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 387 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month