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 .
Applicants’ Preliminary Amendment, filed on March 28, 2024, has been made of record and entered. In this amendment, the Specification has been amended, claims 6, 7, 10-12, 14, 19, 20, 22, 25, 27, 29, and 31 have been canceled, claims 2-5, 8, 9, 13, 15-18, 21, 23, 23, 24, 26, 28, and 30 have been amended, and new claim 32 has been added.
Claims 1-5, 8, 9, 13, 15-18, 21, 23, 24, 26, 28, 30, and 32 are presently pending in this application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Applicants’ Priority Documents were filed on March 28, 2024.
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 26, 28, and 30 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.
Claims 26 and 30 are indefinite for reciting the limitation “method of claim 8”; claim 8 is directed to a catalyst composition.
Claim 28 is indefinite for reciting the limitation “method of claim 14”; claim 14 was canceled in the aforementioned Preliminary Amendment.
For examination purposes, claims 26, 28, and 30 will be interpreted as depending from claim 13.
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.
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(s) 1-5, 8, 9, 13, 15-18, 21, 23, 24, 26, 30, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rösch (U. S. Patent No. 5,908,903).
Regarding claims 1-5, and 8, Rösch teaches a catalyst system comprising (a) a transition metal component comprising a metallocene complex or plurality of metallocene complexes corresponding to Formulae (I) and (II) in Applicants’ claims, wherein an exemplary metallocene complex is biscyclopentadienyl zirconium dichloride (“metallocene compound”), (b) compounds forming metalloceniumions, examples of which include open-chain or cyclic aluminoxane compounds (“alkyl aluminoxane”), and tris(pentafluorophenyl)borane (aka tri (pentafluorobenzene) boron; “organoboron compound”), wherein the compounds forming metalloceniumions may be used alone, in admixture with one another, or in admixture with organometallic compounds, examples of which include trimethylaluminum, triethylaluminum, and triisobutylaluminum (“organoaluminum compound”), with the mixing ratio of the components generally not being critical, and (c) a sterically hindered organic Lewis base, examples of which correspond to Formula (III) in Applicants’ claims (“phenol”). See col. 1, line 40 to col. 7, line 40 of Rösch.
Regarding claim 9, Rösch teaches that (a) the molar ratio of the Lewis base to the transition metal component is generally in the range from 0.0001:1 to 10,000:1, preferably in the range from 0.0001:1 to 2000:1, and that (b) the molar ratio of the Lewis base to the compound forming metalloceniumions usually ranges from 1:1000 to 10,000:1, or from 1:10 to 1000:1. See col. 8, lines 37-40 of Rösch. Inversion of the molar ratio of the Lewis base to the transition metal component results in a molar ratio of transition metal component (“metallocene compound”) to Lewis base (“phenol”) of 1:0.0001 to 1:10,000, preferably in the range of from 1:0.0001 to 1:2000, which reads upon Applicants’ claim limitation “molar ratio of the metallocene compound to the phenol is 1: (1-1,000)”.
Further regarding claim 9, Rösch teaches that the molar ratio of the Lewis base (“phenol”) to the transition metal component (“metallocene compound”) generally ranges from 0.00001:1 to 10,000:1, or from 0.0001:1 to 2000:1, and that the molar ratio of the Lewis base (“phenol”) to the compound forming metalloceniumions (“alkyl aluminoxane”, “organoaluminum compound”, “organoboron compound”) usually ranges from 1:1000 to 10,000:1, or from 1:10 to 1000:1. See col. 8, lines 37-44 of Rösch. By dividing (a) the molar ratio of the Lewis base to the transition metal component (“metallocene compound”) by (b) the molar ratio of the Lewis base to the compound forming metalloceniumions (“alkyl aluminoxane”), the molar ratio of the transition metal component (“metallocene compound”) to the compound forming metalloceniumions (“alkyl aluminoxane”, “organoaluminum compound”, “organoboron compound”) can be determined. For example, by dividing the molar ratio of Lewis base to compound forming metalloceniumions of 1:10 by the molar ratio of Lewis base to transition metal component of 2000:1, the molar ratio of the transition metal component to the compound forming metalloceniumions is (1:10)/(2000:1) = 0.00005, which corresponds to Applicants’ molar ratio of metallocene compound to the alkyl aluminoxane of 1:20,000, or 0.00005. Additionally, by dividing the molar ratio of Lewis base to compound forming metalloceniumions of 10,000:1 by the molar ratio of Lewis base to transition metal component of 10,000:1, the molar ratio of the transition metal component to compound forming metalloceniumions is (10,000:1)/(10,000:1) = 1, which corresponds to Applicants’ molar ratio of metallocene compound to organoboron compound “1:(1-5)”. By dividing the molar ratio of Lewis base to compound forming metalloceniumions of 1000:1 by the molar ratio of Lewis base to transition metal component of 10,000:1, the molar ratio of the transition metal component to compound forming metalloceniumions is (1000:1)/(10,000:1) = 0.1, which corresponds to Applicants’ molar ratio of metallocene compound to organoaluminum compound “1:(10-1000)”.
Regarding claims 13, 15-18, 21, 23, 24, 26, 30, and 32 (it is noted that the limitations of claims 13, 15-18, 21, 23, 24, and 32 parallel those of claims 1, 3-5, 8, and 9), Rösch teaches a process for preparing polymers by linking at least two olefinically unsaturated monomers at 0 to 450°C in the presence of the aforementioned catalyst system, and further teach employment of the aforementioned catalyst composition in the preparation of oligomers, waxes, and high polymers from olefinically unsaturated hydrocarbons, e.g., ethylene and cycloolefins (e.g., cyclopentene, norbornene; “cycloolefin having 5-20 carbon atoms”) via polymerization under conditions including a temperature range of, in particular, 50 to 100°C. See col. 1, lines 41-58, col. 8, line 65 to col. 9, line 10, and col. 9, lines 38-47 of Rösch, as well as col. 10, lines 24-34, which teaches an exemplary polymerization reaction time of 5 hours (300 minutes). From these teachings, the skilled artisan would anticipate employing both ethylene and a cycloolefin in the polymerization process disclosed in Rösch.
Further regarding claim 17, Rösch teaches that the molar ratio of the Lewis base (“phenol”) to the transition metal component (“metallocene compound”) generally ranges from 0.00001:1 to 10,000:1, or from 0.0001:1 to 2000:1, and that the molar ratio of the Lewis base to the compound forming metalloceniumions (“alkyl aluminoxane”) usually ranges from 1:1000 to 10,000:1, or from 1:10 to 1000:1. See col. 8, lines 37-44 of Rösch. By dividing (a) the molar ratio of the Lewis base to the transition metal component (“metallocene compound”) by (b) the molar ratio of the Lewis base to the compound forming metalloceniumions (“alkyl aluminoxane”), the molar ratio of the transition metal component (“metallocene compound”) to the compound forming metalloceniumions (“alkyl aluminoxane”) can be determined. For example, by dividing the molar ratio of Lewis base to compound forming metalloceniumions of 1:10 by the molar ratio of Lewis base to transition metal component of 2000:1, the molar ratio of the compound forming metalloceniumions to the transition metal component is (1:10)/(2000:1) = 0.00005, which corresponds to Applicants’ molar ratio of metallocene compound to the alkyl aluminoxane of 1:20,000, or 0.00005.
Further regarding claim 24, Rösch teaches that the molar ratio of the Lewis base to the transition metal component is generally in the range from 0.0001:1 to 10,000:1, preferably in the range from 0.0001:1 to 2000:1. See col. 8, lines 38-40 of Rösch. Inversion of this molar ratio results in a molar ratio of transition metal component (“metallocene compound”) to Lewis base (“phenol”) of 1:0.0001 to 1:10,000, preferably in the range of from 1:0.0001 to 1:2000, which reads upon Applicants’ claim limitation “molar ratio of the metallocene compound to the phenol is 1: (1-1,000)” in claim 24.
In view of these teachings, Rösch anticipates claims 1-5, 8, 9, 13, 15-18, 21, 23, 24, 26, 28, 30, and 32.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 28 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
Neither Rösch nor the cited references of record teach or suggest the limitations of this claim, regarding the presence or concentration of enol in the polymerization reaction, and/or the structure of the enol, as recited in this claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICIA L HAILEY whose telephone number is (571)272-1369. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
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, Ching-Yiu (Coris) Fung, can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/Patricia L. Hailey/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 September 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights