DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-18, drawn to an oligomerization process, classified in C07C2/34.
II. Claims 19 and 20, drawn to a catalyst composition, classified in B01J31/16.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case the catalyst as claimed could be used in another and materially different process, such as a polymerization process.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification; the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; and the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Todd Obijeski on 21 January 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-18. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 19 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-10, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bischof et al. (WO 2018/125826).
With regard to claims 1-3, 7, 8, 10, and 18, Bischof teaches a process for oligomerization of ethylene (paragraph [0001]) comprising the following:
a) contacting cyclohexane (organic reaction medium which is the same as the hydrocarbon diluent which is a saturated aliphatic hydrocarbon instant claims 1-3 and 18), ethylene, a composition comprising PB1 having the formula below (heteroatomic ligand) and Fe(acac)2 (transition metal compound comprising Fe and a monoanionic ligand which is acetylacetonate instant claims 7 and 8), and MMAO-3A (organoaluminum MMAO of instant claim 10) in an oligomerization reactor (paragraph [00219]).
b) forming a product comprising C4-C20 olefins (paragraph [00219], Table 2) including hexenes and octenes (paragraph [00167]).
c) removing the product as effluent from the reaction zone (paragraphs [00167] and [0039]). Bischof does not explicitly teach the effluent also comprises unreacted ethylene, however, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that all reactions have at least a small amount of unreacted reactants, and the unreacted reactants would be expected to be present in the effluent, which is defined as all components removed from the reactor (paragraph [0039]).
PNG
media_image1.png
244
394
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 4, Bischof teaches that the Fe(acac)2 (transition metal compound) is in solution in cyclohexane (paragraph [00219]), thus the transition metal compound is soluble in the hydrocarbon diluent and the organic reaction medium, as claimed.
With regard to claim 9, Bischof teaches the molar ratio of ligand to transition meal is in a range of 1:1 to 1:20 (paragraph [00219], Table 2), which is within the range of 20:1 to 1:20 of instant claim 9.
With regard to claims 14 and 16, Bischof teaches combining cyclohexane, PB1, and Fe(acac)2 (instant claim 16) and introducing the combination into the reactor and then introducing the MMAO compound into the reactor, and then mixing to activate (form) the catalyst composition (instant claim 14) (paragraph [00219]).
With regard to claim 15, Bischof teaches the reactor is a continuous stirred tank reactor, a loop reactor, or a combination thereof (paragraph [00150]).
With regard to claim 17, Bischof teaches the ethylene is introduced into the reactor separately from the catalyst components (paragraph [00219]).
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bischof et al. (WO 2018/125826).
With regard to claim 13, Bischof teaches introducing an organoaluminum compound and a transition metal ligand complex comprising a transitional metal compound and a heteroatomic ligand to the reaction zone (paragraph [0005]). Bischof further teaches that the process refers to any addition, sequence, or order for combining components, where the combining can occur in a vessel or pipe or any suitable apparatus for bringing the components into contact. Thus, while Bischof does not explicitly teach forming the catalyst composition comprising the components above before introducing the composition into the reaction zone, because Bischof teaches combining all the components and that the components can be combined in any sequence or order in any suitable apparatus, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably find it obvious to form the catalyst composition before adding the composition to the reaction zone, as claimed, without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bischof et al. (WO 2018/125826) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huang et al. (CN 106432336, cited on IDS of 06/06/2024) (machine translation provided herein).
With regard to claim 5, Bischof teaches the method above. Bischof teaches that the ligand can be any heteroatomic ligand which when contacted with ethylene can form an oligomer product (paragraph [0049]).
Bischof fails to specifically teach a ligand of formula IA.
Huang teaches ethylene polymerization using a PNN ligand based on a quinoline skeleton with an iron complex (Abstract). Huang teaches the ligand has the following structure (paragraph [0185]).
PNG
media_image2.png
192
230
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This is equivalent to a compound of formula IA wherein X is P, y is 2, R1-R5 and R8-R10 are independently hydrogen, R5 is a C1 hydrocarbyl group, each of R7 and R11 are a C3 hydrocarbyl group, and each R12 is a C6 hydrocarbyl group. Huang further teaches that similar pyridine diamine complexes are known to catalyze both ethylene polymerization and ethylene oligomerization (paragraph [0006]).
Therefore, while Huang does not explicitly teach the ligands of formula IA above can be used for ethylene oligomerization, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to try the ligands above in the ethylene oligomerization of Bischof. This is because Bischof teaches that any ligand which can catalyze ethylene oligomerization can be used, Huang teaches that is known that similar ligands comprising a pyridine group and imine group are capable of catalyzing both ethylene oligomerization and polymerization, and because Huang teaches that the ligands above catalyst ethylene polymerization efficiently and would thus be expected to also catalyze oligomerization similarly to the catalysts of Huang paragraph [0006], with a reasonable expectation of success due to the similar structures and without undue experimentation as the catalysts are known and similar conditions for ethylene oligomerization are known.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bischof et al. (WO 2018/125826) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huang et al. (CN 106432336, cited on IDS of 06/06/2024) (machine translation provided herein) and Huang (CN 104725420) (machine translation provided herein).
CN 106432336 will be referred to as Huang I and CN 104725420 will be referred to as Huang II herein.
With regard to claim 6, Bischof teaches the method above. Bischof teaches that the ligand can be any heteroatomic ligand which when contacted with ethylene can form an oligomer product (paragraph [0049]).
Bischof fails to specifically teach a ligand of formula IIA.
Huang II teaches a catalyst comprising a PNN ligand having the following structure (paragraph [0111]):
PNG
media_image3.png
229
276
media_image3.png
Greyscale
This is equivalent to a compound of formula IIA, where X is P, y is 2, Y is O, RB to RD and RG to RI are each independently hydrogen, RE is a C1 hydrocarbyl group, RF and RJ are each a C3 hydrocarbyl group, and each R1 is independently a C4 hydrocarbyl group.
Huang II teaches the catalyst can be used for hydrosilylation (paragraph [0004]) does not specifically teach the catalyst can be used for ethylene oligomerization.
Huang I teaches ethylene polymerization using a PNN ligand with an iron complex (Abstract). Huang teaches the ligand has the following structure (paragraph [0185]).
PNG
media_image2.png
192
230
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Huang I further teaches that similar pyridine diamine complexes are known to catalyze both ethylene polymerization and ethylene oligomerization (paragraph [0006]). Huang I further teaches that the catalysts which are used for ethylene polymerization are also used in hydrosilylation (paragraph [0059]). Thus, Huang I demonstrates that similar PNN ligands are used for both hydrosilylation and ethylene polymerization reactions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the ligand of Huang II in the ethylene oligomerization process of Bischof, because Bischof teaches that any ligand which can catalyze ethylene oligomerization can be used, Huang I teaches that is known that similar ligands comprising a pyridine group and imine group are capable of catalyzing both ethylene oligomerization and polymerization, Huang I further teaches that the same catalysts can be used in hydrosilylation as well as the ethylene polymerization, and Huang II teaches the PNN catalysts are used for hydrosilylation and have good catalytic performance, and low cost (paragraph [0008]) and thus would be expected to function in the ethylene oligomerization of Bischof, without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bischof et al. (WO 2018/125826) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gauthier et al. (US 2004/0204310) and Nouryon (MMAO-3A).
With regard to claim 11, Bischof teaches the process above. Bischof further teaches that the organoaluminum compound can be aluminoxane comprising repeating units having formula I (paragraph [0140]), where R’ is a linear alkyl group which can be methyl or ethyl (paragraph [0070]) and n can be greater than 2 (paragraph [00140]).
PNG
media_image4.png
168
178
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Bischof further teaches the compound can be a modified methylaluminoxane (paragraph [00142]).
Bischof fails to specifically teach i) the aluminoxane comprises methyl and ethyl aluminoxanes or ii) the amount of the methyl and ethyl components and the amount of aluminum in the compound.
With regard to i), Gauthier teaches aluminoxane compounds having the formula I above (paragraph [0062]). Gauthier further teaches that modified methyl aluminoxane includes minor amounts of other higher alkyl groups (paragraph [0063]) where the higher alkyl groups only include C2-C4 alkyl groups (paragraph [0063]). Thus, Gauthier teaches a finite list of alkyl groups which can be used in the modified methylaluminoxane.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use methylaluminoxane modified with ethyl in the process of Bischof, because Bischof teaches modified methylaluminoxane (paragraph [00142]) and Gauthier teaches that it is known that modified methylaluminoxanes include minor amounts of higher alkyl groups, including ethyl, where the list of alkyl groups is finite and would expect to have a reasonable expectation of success because Gauthier teaches the use of any higher alkyl group from the finite list (paragraph [0063]).
With regard to ii), Nouryon teaches that a specific example of a modified methylaluminoxane comprises 6-8 wt% aluminum, 62-78 mol% methyl groups, and 22-38 mol% of the higher alkyl group (page 1). These are within the ranges of 1-20 wt%, 5-80 mol%, and 20-95 mol% of instant claim 11. While Nouryon does not specifically teach the amounts are for ethyl groups, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably find it obvious to try the known amounts for the modified methylaluminoxane, with a reasonable expectation of success, and without undue experimentation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the amounts of Nouryon to form the compound of Bischof in view of Gauthier, because Bischof in view of Gauthier teaches the modified methylaluminoxane, and Nouryon teaches suitable amounts for a similar modified methylaluminoxane.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bischof et al. (WO 2018/125826) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gauthier et al. (US 2004/0204310), Nouryon (MMAO-3A), and Slaugh et al. (US 5,043,515).
With regard to claim 12, Bischof teaches the method above. Bischof further teaches the compound can be a modified methylaluminoxane (paragraph [00142]) which can be made by reacting water with an organoaluminum compound (paragraph [00141]).
Bischof fails to specifically teach i) TEA and TMA as the organoaluminum compounds, ii) the molar amounts of TMA and TEA, iii) the molar ratio of water:Al, or iv: the amount of aluminum in the resulting compound.
With regard to i), Gauthier teaches modified methyl aluminoxane includes minor amounts of other higher alkyl groups (paragraph [0063]) where the higher alkyl groups only include C2-C4 alkyl groups (paragraph [0063]). Thus, Gauthier teaches a finite list of alkyl groups which can be used in the modified methylaluminoxane.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use methylaluminoxane modified with ethyl in the process of Bischof, because Bischof teaches modified methylaluminoxane (paragraph [00142]) and Gauthier teaches that it is known that modified methylaluminoxanes include minor amounts of higher alkyl groups, including ethyl, where the list of alkyl groups is finite and would expect to have a reasonable expectation of success because Gauthier teaches the use of any higher alkyl group from the finite list (paragraph [0063]).
With regard to ii) and iv), Nouryon teaches that a specific example of a modified methylaluminoxane comprises 6-8 wt% aluminum, 62-78 mol% methyl groups, and 22-38 mol% of the higher alkyl group (page 1). These are within the ranges of 1-20 wt%, 5-80 mol%, and 20-95 mol% of instant claim 12. While Nouryon does not specifically teach the amounts are for ethyl groups, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably find it obvious to try the known amounts for the modified methylaluminoxane, with a reasonable expectation of success, and without undue experimentation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the amounts of Nouryon to form the compound of Bischof in view of Gauthier, because Bischof in view of Gauthier teaches the modified methylaluminoxane, and Nouryon teaches suitable amounts for a similar modified methylaluminoxane.
With regard to iii), Slaugh teaches a process of ethylene oligomerization (Abstract). Slaugh further teaches when making aluminoxanes, it is known that typically the mole ratio of alkylaluminium compound to water is 1:1 (column 3, line 51). This is within the range of 0.2:1 to 1:1 of instant claim 12.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the ratio of Slaugh in the process of Bischof, because Bischof and Slaugh each teach synthesis of aluminoxanes and Slaugh teaches that a molar ratio of 1:1 aluminum compound to water is typical in the process (column 3, line 51).
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, 9, 13-15, 17, and 18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of copending Application No. 18/642,892 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-18 of Application 18/642,892 are a specific embodiment of instant claims 1-5, 7-9, 13-15, 17, and 18.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Instant claims 1-4, 7, 9, 13-15, 17, and 18 recite an oligomerization process comprising contacting ethylene, an organic reaction medium, an organoaluminum compound, a heteroatomic ligand, and a transition metal compound in an oligomerization reactor, forming an oligomer product comprising hexenes and octenes, and discharging an effluent comprising the oligomer product and unreacted ethylene. The claims further recite a hydrocarbon diluent which is the same as the organic reaction medium and is an aliphatic compound, the transition metal compound has the formula M(X1)p wherein M is Fe, Ni, or Co; p is an oxidation state, and X1 is a monoanionic ligand, and a molar ratio of Al:ligand is 10:1 to 5,000:1. The claims also recite wherein the catalyst composition is formed before introducing or within the oligomerization reactor, and wherein hydrogen is present in the process. Instant claim 5 recites wherein the ligand is formula IA, and instant claim 6 recites where the ligand is formula IIA.
Claims 1-14 of Application 18/642,892 recite an oligomerization process comprising contacting ethylene, an organic reaction medium, an organoaluminum compound, a heteroatomic ligand which is formula IA, and a transition metal compound in an oligomerization reactor, forming an oligomer product comprising hexenes and octenes, and discharging an effluent comprising the oligomer product and unreacted ethylene. The claims further recite a hydrocarbon diluent which is the same as the organic reaction medium and is an aliphatic compound, the transition metal compound has the formula M(X1)p wherein M is Fe, Ni, or Co; p is an oxidation state, and X1 is a monoanionic ligand, and a molar ratio of Al:ligand is 100:1 to 1,000:1. The claims also recite wherein the catalyst composition is formed before introducing or within the oligomerization reactor, and wherein hydrogen is optionally present in the process. Claims 15-18 of Application 18/642,892 recite where the ligand is formula IIA.
Therefore, while the claims are not identical as the process of instant claim 1 is broader than the process of claim 8 or claim 17 of Application 18/642,892, because Application 18/642,892 teaches a specific embodiment of the process wherein the ligand is Formula IA or Formula IIA, claims 1-18 of Application 18/642,892 render instant claims 1-7, 9, 13-15, 17, and 18 unpatentable.
Claims 1, 9, 11-14, and 18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9, 10, and 13-17 of copending Application No. 18/642,883 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claims 1, 9, 10, and 13-17 of Application 18/642,883 encompass instant claims 1-4, 9-12, 13, 14, and 18.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Instant claims 1, 9, 13, 14, and 18 recite an oligomerization process comprising contacting ethylene, an organic reaction medium, an organoaluminum compound, a heteroatomic ligand, and a transition metal compound in an oligomerization reactor, forming an oligomer product comprising hexenes and octenes, and discharging an effluent comprising the oligomer product and unreacted ethylene. The claims further recite a molar ratio of Al:ligand is 10:1 to 5,000:1. The claims also recite wherein the catalyst composition is formed before introducing or within the oligomerization reactor. Instant claim 11 recites where the organoaluminum compound comprises repeating units of formula A and B in a ratio of 5:95 to 80:20 and an amount of aluminum of 0.1 to 20 wt%. Instant claim 12 recites wherein the organoaluminum compound is synthesized by reacting TMA, TEA and water, wherein the ratio of TMA to TEA is 5:95 to 80:20, a molar ratio of water:Al is 0.2:1 to 1:1, and removing insoluble materials to form an aluminoxane composition comprising 0.1 to 20 wt% aluminum.
Claims 9, 10, and 13-16 of Application 18/642,883 recite an oligomerization process comprising contacting ethylene, an organic reaction medium, an organoaluminum compound, a heteroatomic ligand, and a transition metal compound in an oligomerization reactor, forming an oligomer product comprising hexenes and octenes, and discharging an effluent comprising the oligomer product and unreacted ethylene. The claims further recite a molar ratio of Al:ligand is 100:1 to 2,000:1. The claims also recite wherein the catalyst composition is formed before introducing or within the oligomerization reactor. Claim 17 of Application 18/642,883 recites where the organoaluminum compound comprises repeating units of formula A and B in a ratio of 5:95 to 80:20 and an amount of aluminum of 0.1 to 20 wt%. Claim 1 of Application 18/642,883 recites wherein the organoaluminum compound is synthesized by reacting TMA, TEA and water, wherein the ratio of TMA to TEA is 5:95 to 80:20, a molar ratio of water:Al is 0.2:1 to 1:1, and removing insoluble materials to form an aluminoxane composition comprising 0.1 to 20 wt% aluminum.
Therefore, while the claims are not identical, because Application 18/642,883 encompasses the process of the instant claims, claims 1, 9, 10, and 13-17 of Application 18/642,892 render instant claims 1, 9, 11-14, and 18 unpatentable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA L CEPLUCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5752. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30 am-5 pm, EST.
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.
/Alyssa L Cepluch/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772