DETAILED ACTION
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on Oct. 3, 2025 has been entered.
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 .
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 102
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0022725 A1 (herein “Thuilliez”).
This rejection was adequately set forth in paragraphs 2-10 of the Office action mailed on Dec. 30, 2024 and is incorporated here by reference.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Thuilliez in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0353716 A1 (herein “Thuilliez ‘716”).
This rejection was adequately set forth in paragraphs 11-15 of the Office action mailed on Dec. 30, 2024 and is incorporated here by reference.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed Oct. 3, 2025 (herein “Remarks”) and the accompanying declaration under rule 132 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states (item 5 at the bottom of p. 2 of the Declaration) that the (inventive) copolymer of example 2 may be compared to the copolymers of (comparative) examples 6-8 because they have similar inherent viscosities.
Applicant states (item 5 at the top of p. 3 of the Declaration) that “one of ordinary skill in the art will recognize that the lower Mooney viscosity value and higher cold flow value of the copolymer of test 2 are a result of the copolymer being branched.”
The data in the accompanying Figure on p. 4 of the Declaration, and the corresponding data presented in Table 2 of the specification, show that the copolymer of example 2 has a higher Mooney viscosity (77.9) than the argued points of comparison (36.3 to 52.3 for the copolymers of examples 6-8).
The data presented thus does not support Applicant’s statement in the declaration that the copolymer of example 2 has a lower Mooney viscosity value as a result of the copolymer being branched.
Applicant states (bottom of p. 3 of the Declaration) that for equivalent molecular weight, highly branched polymers generally have a lower intrinsic viscosity compared to linear polymers.
Applicant has not established that any of the examples have equivalent molecular weights, and therefore no conclusions can be drawn to as branching content on the basis of their relative intrinsic viscosity. Additionally, the data presented in the specification and in the declaration is drawn to inherent viscosity, and therefore the statement in the declaration drawn to intrinsic viscosity does not appear to be pertinent to the data proffered.
Applicant states (top of p. 4 of the Declaration) that a lower intrinsic viscosity may indicate a more branched structure.
Applicant’s statement is ambiguous (“may”), and it does not clearly assert that the inventive examples 1 and 2 have more branching than the comparative examples.
Nonetheless, even if (arguendo) if were more clearly asserted or established that the inventive examples 1 and 2 have more branching than the comparative examples 3-8, it would nonetheless remain that it has not been established that the comparative examples 3-8 lack any branching. Without such a conclusion having been established, it cannot be inferred that the cited copolymer of Thuilliez would lack branching.
The rejections over Thuilliez that were set forth in the preceding Office actions have been maintained above in paragraphs 5-8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD A. HUHN whose telephone number is (571)270-7345. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9 AM to 6 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, Arrie (Lanee) Reuther can be reached at (571) 270-7026. 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.
/RICHARD A. HUHN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764