DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This Office action is based on the 18/609,678 application filed 19 March 2024 for the 18/609,678 application, which is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-15 are pending and have been fully considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 6 recites “diglycidyl-2,2-cyclohexane dicarboxylate.” It appears such a compound does not exist. Perhaps the claim should recite “diglycidyl-1[[2]],2-cyclohexane dicarboxylate” instead. See, e.g., Example 1, specifically, paragraph 0040 of the published application. Appropriate correction is required.
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 6 is 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.
With respect to claim 6, it is unclear what the diglycidylester compound comprises. See “Claim Objections” above. For purposes of continued examination, it is assumed that the diglycidylester compound comprises diglycidyl-1,2-cyclohexane dicarboxylate.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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, 6-7, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN 104672356).
Note: in the discussion that follows, reference will be made to the WIPO machine translation of the aforementioned reference, which is attached with this correspondence.
With respect to claim 1, Chen discloses “a catalyst for olefin polymerization, especially a solid titanium-based catalyst component for olefin polymerization, in particular propylene polymerization or copolymerization” [see paragraph following the heading “Technical Field”]” and “[t]he technical solution adopted by the present invention to solve the technical problem is: A solid titanium-based Ziegler-Natta catalyst main catalyst component for olefin polymerization is mainly composed of titanium, magnesium, halogen and an electron donor compound, which is obtained by contacting the following substances: dissolving magnesium halide in a homogeneous solution formed by an organic alcohol-containing solvent system; liquid tetravalent titanium compound; an electron donor compound; [t]he structure of the internal electron donor compound is shown in (I), and the internal electron donor compound is used in an amount of 0.02-0.40 mol per mole of magnesium halide.
PNG
media_image1.png
173
320
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the groups R1, R2, R3 and R4 are selected from H, C1-C20 linear or branched alkyl, alkenyl, cycloalkyl, aryl, arylalkyl or alkylaryl groups, or is selected from halogen atoms. The internal electron donor is a mixture of one or more of diglycidyl ester of phthalic acid, diglycidyl ester of dihydrophthalate, diglycidyl ester of tetrahydrophthalate, diglycidyl hexahydrophthalate and 4,5-epoxycyclohexane -1,2-dicarboxylic acid diglycidyl ester. Since the internal electron donor is a mixture of one or more, it is obvious that the internal electron donor compound of formula (I) above corresponds to the diglycidylester compounds of instant claim 1, while a second internal electron donor corresponds to the internal electron donor of the instant application.
With respect to claims 6 and 7, when R1, R2, R3, and R4 are -H, the diglycidylester compound is diglycidyl-1,2-cyclohexane dicarboxylate.
With respect to claims 14 and 15, Chen discloses “[t]he solid titanium main catalyst component (active component) of the present invention described above; a co-catalyst component; an external electron donor compound; wherein the co-catalyst component is an aluminum alkyl compound having the general formula AlRnX3-n, wherein R is the same or different C1-C20 alkyl group, may be a linear, branched or cyclic alkyl group, X is a halogen, n = 1, 2 or 3 is preferably triethylaluminum, triisobutylaluminum, tri-n-butylaluminum, tri-n-hexylaluminum, aluminum chloride alkyl chloride, Al(n-C6H13)3, Al(n-C8H17)3, AlEt2Cl, etc.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 and 8-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Chen does not teach the required urea, malonate or 1,3-diether compounds.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN A MCCAIG whose telephone number is (571)270-5548. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8 to 4:30 Mountain Time.
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.
/BRIAN A MCCAIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
11 August 2026
Prosecution Insights