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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of guanidine, photocurable resin, and isocyanate in the reply filed on 9/8/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 10, 11, 14, 15, and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. New claim 20 is not readable on the elected species since acrylate is reacted to generate a photocurable resin. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/8/2025.
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 1-9, 12, 13, and 16-19 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.
Claim 1 recites “reconfigurable strong resin”. The term “strong” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “strong” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the catalyst is chosen from guanidine, amidine, amine”. The lack of a contraction (and, or) preceding the final species renders the scope of the claim unclear. It is unclear whether the grouping is meant to be closed (e.g. selected from the group consisting of). Accordingly, the intended scope of the claim is unclear.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the solvent is chosen from dimethylformamide, dimethylacetamide… butanediamine, pyridine”. The lack of a contraction (and, or) preceding the final species renders the scope of the claim unclear. It is unclear whether the grouping is meant to be closed (e.g. selected from the group consisting of). Accordingly, the intended scope of the claim is unclear.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the functional groups include alcohol, carboxylic acid, secondary amide, ester”. The lack of a contraction (and, or) preceding the final species renders the scope of the claim unclear.
As claims 2-9, 12, 13, and 16-19 depend from claim 1, they are rejected for the same issue discussed above.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the guanidine is chosen from 1,5,7-triazidebicyclo(4.4.0)dec-5-ene… 7-methyl-1,5,7-triazabis[4.4.0]dec-5-ene”. The lack of a contraction (and, or) preceding the final species renders the scope of the claim unclear. It is unclear whether the grouping is meant to be closed (e.g. selected from the group consisting of). Accordingly, the intended scope of the claim is unclear.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the amidine is chosen from 1,8-diazabicycloundec-7-ene… chlorphenamidine”. The lack of a contraction (and, or) preceding the final species renders the scope of the claim unclear. It is unclear whether the grouping is meant to be closed (e.g. selected from the group consisting of). Accordingly, the intended scope of the claim is unclear.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the amine is chosen from triethylamine… triethylenediamine”. The lack of a contraction (and, or) preceding the final species renders the scope of the claim unclear. It is unclear whether the grouping is meant to be closed (e.g. selected from the group consisting of). Accordingly, the intended scope of the claim is unclear.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the content of the solvent is 0.1-30 times of the resin”. The claim fails to state whether the figure is by weight or by volume. Accordingly, the intended scope of the claim is unclear.
In claim 8, the terminology “the recycled fragment mixture” lacks antecedent basis. Recitation of “the polymer fragment mixture” is suggested.
Claim 8 recites “various molecular structures (linear, branched, and/or hyperbranched)”. The parentheses surrounding "linear, branched, and/or hyperbranched" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations are part of the claimed invention. If not limiting, the terminology “various molecular structures” is vague to the extent that the intended scope of the claim is unclear. For instance, the terminology could be referring to various differences in branching, or to a length distribution of linear chains.
Claim 8 recites “wide molecular weight distribution (100-100,000 g/mol)”. The parentheses surrounding "100-100,000 g/mol" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations are part of the claimed invention. Also, it is unclear what is meant or implied by a distribution of 100-100,000 g/mol. Does 100 and 100,000 have to be the exact end points present? Do the molecular weights values have to encompass all values between 100-100,000 g/mol? Does the figure refer to the average molecular weight of the distribution? If so, the terminology “wide” is a relative term that renders the scope of the claim indefinite, and it is unclear whether such values are number or weight average values.
Claim 12 recites “wherein the additives include isocyanate, acrylate… catalyst”. The lack of a contraction (and, or) preceding the final species renders the scope of the claim unclear. The scope of the claim is also unclear as it appears claims 1 and 12 are using the terminology “additives” in a different manner. In claim 1, the terminology “additive” is used to denote compounds that react to obtained a photocurable resin. In claim 12, the term “additive” encompasses additional materials that would seemingly not react to form photocurable resin (see “photoinitiator”, “light absorber”, and “catalyst”). Therefore, the intended scope of the claim is unclear.
As claims 13 and 17-19 depend from claim 12, they are rejected for the same issue discussed above.
Claim 13 recites “wherein the photocurable resin can be applied to 3D printing, photoresist, coatings, adhesives”. The lack of a contraction (and, or) preceding the final species renders the scope of the claim unclear. It is also unclear what is meant by “applied to”. Is the photocurable resin meant to be spread onto a 3D printing/ photoresist/coating/adhesive surface? Is the resin meant to be used in some process involving 3D printing/ photoresist/coating/adhesive? If the latter, the scope of the claim is indefinite as no ascertainable required process steps involved in “applied to” are set forth.
Claim 16 recites “wherein the reconfigurable strong resin or the photocurable resin is recycled through steps (1) and (2)”. It is unclear what is meant or implied by the resins being “recycled through steps (1) and (2)” since claim 1 requires that steps (1) and (2) create the resins at issue. The specification as filed provides no hint or guidance as to what is intended by the language “recycled through steps (1) and (2)”.
Claim 17 requires a certain content of additives. The scope of the claim is indefinite as claim 1 and claim 12 use the terminology “additive” in differing manners. In claim 1, the terminology “additive” is used to denote compounds that react to obtained a photocurable resin. In claim 12, the term “additive” encompasses additional materials that would seemingly not react to form photocurable resin (see “photoinitiator”, “light absorber”, and “catalyst”). It is unclear which form claim 17 is referring to.
Claim 17 refers to 5%-50% of additives. It is unclear whether the recited percentage is wt% or vol%.
Claim 12 requires that step (2) create a photocurable resin, but claim 18 indicates step (2) includes a pre-curing step and a post-curing step. The scope of claim 18 is indefinite as it is uncertain whether step (2) is required to produce a curable resin per claim 12 or a cured resin per claim 18.
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) 1-9, 12, 13, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xie (CN113248668A). As the cited CN publication is in a non-English language, a machine-translated version of the publication will be cited to.
The Xie reference lists inventors not appearing for the present application (Zhao Qian). Since it is not readily apparent that Xie is an inventor-originated disclosure, Xie is treated as prior art under 35 USC 102(a)(1). See MPEP 2153.01(a).
Regarding Claims 1, 2, 12, and 19, Xie teaches recycling polyurethane foams (Page 1) whereby the foams can have urea, urethane, and ester bonds (Page 2). Examples are taught where crushed foam is mixed with 1,5,7-triazidobicyclo(4.4.0)dec-5-ene catalyst and dimethylformamide solvent to break apart/dissolve the foam crosslinked structure and form oligomers (construed as non-crosslinked polymer fragment mixture) with hydroxyl functional groups; after which, the fragment mixture is reacted with isocyanate additive to obtain a photocurable resin (Example 1; Pages 3-4).
Regarding Claims 3 and 4, Xie’s disclosure of a guanidine catalyst satisfies the Markush group of claim 1. Claims 3 and 4 are also met as they only further limit of alternative species set forth.
Regarding Claims 5 and 6, Xie’s example uses 5 g of foam, 50 mL of DMF solvent (density ~ 0.95 g/mL), and 0.15 g of catalyst (Page 3), equivalent to roughly 9.5x solvent relative to foam and 0.3 wt% of catalyst relative to solvent.
Regarding Claim 7, Xie’s example uses 120 degrees C for 5 minutes (Page 3).
Regarding Claim 8, Xie teaches the resulting oligomers are linear, branched, or hyperbranched (Page 2), construed as “various molecular structures”. There is no perceivable difference in protocol between what is claimed and what is set forth by the disclosure of Xie. Therefore, a “wide molecular weight distribution” is seen to intrinsically occur in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Regarding Claim 9, Xie teaches solvent and catalyst can be separated via various methods such as vacuum distillation to achieve recycling (Page 2).
Regarding Claim 13, Xie teaches the photocurable resins are useful for 3D printing (Page 4).
Regarding Claim 17, Xie teaches the proportion of polyurethane foam recovery product to the photosensitive resin composition is 50-90 wt% (Page 3), implying additive contents spanning 10-50 wt%.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie (CN113248668A). As the cited CN publication is in a non-English language, a machine-translated version of the publication will be cited to.
Xie teaches recycling polyurethane foams (Page 1) whereby the foams can have urea, urethane, and ester bonds (Page 2). Examples are taught where crushed foam is mixed with 1,5,7-triazidobicyclo(4.4.0)dec-5-ene catalyst and dimethylformamide solvent to break apart/dissolve the foam crosslinked structure and form oligomers (construed as non-crosslinked polymer fragment mixture) with hydroxyl functional groups; after which, the fragment mixture is reacted with isocyanate additive to obtain a photocurable resin (Example 1; Pages 3-4).
Regarding Claim 8, alternatively to claim 8, Xie teaches the polyurethane foam is reacted/broken down to the extent that the polymer forms soluble oligomers (Example 1). Xie teaches the resulting oligomers are linear, branched, or hyperbranched (Page 2), construed as “various molecular structures”. While not providing a quantitative measure of molecular weight, Xie nonetheless indicates such is a result effective variable since a high molecular weight / crosslinked material is an insoluble substance and a low molecular weight / oligomeric material provides solubility for further functionalization. See MPEP 2144.05(II). Case law holds that “discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art.” See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In view of this, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to discover workable/optimal molecular weights and distributions by routine experimentation within the scope of the present claims so as to produce desired degree of solubility for further reactions.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie (CN113248668A) in view of Rasoul (US 2020/0062891 A1). As the cited CN publication is in a non-English language, a machine-translated version of the publication will be cited to.
The discussion regarding Xie within ¶ 40-41 is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 18, Xie teaches examples where crushed foam is mixed with 1,5,7-triazidobicyclo(4.4.0)dec-5-ene catalyst and dimethylformamide solvent to break apart the foam crosslinked structure and form oligomers (construed as non-crosslinked polymer fragment mixture) with hydroxyl functional groups; after which, the fragment mixture is reacted with isocyanate additive to obtain a photocurable resin (Example 1; Pages 3-4). Xie differs from the subject matter claimed in that a two step protocol of reacting isocyanate is not described.
Rasoul is also directed toward the photocurable compositions with end-capped unsaturated polyesters (Abstract). Rasoul teaches the reaction of isocyanate with polyester can occur in two stages, where low temperatures such as less than 65 degrees C is used first with cooling owing to the reaction being exothermic and a subsequent second stage such as at 65 degrees C is used to complete the reaction (¶ 255-257). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a two-step thermal reaction protocol within the methods of Xie because doing so would promote complete reactions while avoiding thermal runaways associated with exothermic reactions as taught by Rasoul. While not giving defined ranges associated with temperatures / timeframes, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Rasoul makes clear using a low temperature in a first stage and a high temperature in a second stage promotes complete reactions while avoiding thermal runaways. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to discover workable/optimal temperatures and timeframes for a given polymer/isocyanate system such as those taught by Xie so as to arrive at complete reactions while avoiding thermal runaways.
Claim(s) 1-9, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamoto (JP2011-075865A) in view of Burdeniuc (WO 2022/194587 A2). As the cited JP publication is in a non-English language, a machine-translated version of the publication will be cited to.
Regarding Claims 1, 2, 12, and 19, Okamoto teaches the creation of photocurable resins derived via depolymerizing polyesters with polyol and subsequently reacting with isocyanate (Abstract; Claim 4; Examples). Examples are taught where propylene glycol solvent, polyethylene terephthalate polyester, and catalyst are introduced into a reactor and heated until dissolution (¶ 120). The resulting polymer contains hydroxyl and carboxyl endgroups and also ester functionalities (¶ 15). Since the original PET is not crosslinked, it stands to reason the mixture obtained is a non-crosslinked polymer fragment mixture.
Okamoto teaches various depolymerization catalysts can be used (¶ 21), but differs from the subject matter claimed in that guanidine catalyst is not described. Burdeniuc also pertains to the depolymerization of polyesters such as PET (Abstract). Burdeniuc teaches guanidines such as tetramethylguanidine are known catalysts that promote the depolymerization reaction (¶ 10,14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the guanidine catalysts of Burdeniuc within the protocols of Okamoto because doing so would effectively promote the depolymerization of polyesters as taught by Burdeniuc.
Regarding Claims 3 and 4, Burdeniuc’s disclosure of a guanidine catalyst satisfies the Markush group of claim 1. Claims 3 and 4 are also met as they only further limit of alternative species set forth.
Regarding Claims 5 and 6, Okamoto teaches 62 pbw of propylene glycol relative to 0.77 pbw of catalyst and 64 pbw of PET (¶ 120), equivalent to a solvent content of 0.97 times the resin and a catalyst content of 1.2 wt% of solvent.
Regarding Claim 7, Okamoto teaches dissolving at 130 degrees C (¶ 120). Although an exact timeframe is not reported, Okamoto implies the time of dissolution is a result effective variable as Okamoto expressly indicates heating must occur until dissolution is observed, after which further reactions take place (¶ 120). Case law holds that “discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art.” See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In view of this, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to discover workable/optimal heating timeframes within the scope of the present claims so as to produce desired degree of solubility for further reactions.
Regarding Claim 8, Okamoto teaches the depolymerization of PET with propylene glycol and trimethylolpropane (¶ 120). The depolymerization process results in decreasing molecular weight (¶ 21). Since PET is linear and the inclusion of trimethylolpropane is seen to result in some degree of branching, the resulting blend is seen to read on “various molecular structures” and a “wide” distribution. Okamoto also generally indicates with respect to resins used within the resulting compositions that those with average molecular weights less than 2,000 give poor tack-free performance and those more than 150,000 give deteriorated storage stability (¶ 66). Accordingly, Okamoto is seen to indicate the molecular weight achieved is a known result effective variable subject to routine optimization by one of ordinary skill in the art. Case law holds that “discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art.” See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In view of this, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to discover workable/optimal molecular weights / distributions within the scope of the present claims so as to produce desirable tack and storage stability characteristics within the resulting compositions.
Regarding Claim 9, as there is no perceivable difference in structure between the solvents/catalysts of the prior art and those instantly disclosed/claimed, such materials are seen to be intrinsically capable of being recycled by the various methods of claim 9 in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Regarding Claim 13, Okamoto teaches the photocurable resins are useful for coatings/photoresists (Abstract).
Regarding Claim 16, while the photocurable resins of Okamoto are not described as being recycled according to steps (1) and (2), Okamoto indicates the waste polyester used can be any known polyester (¶ 18). Since the resulting materials taught by Okamoto are polyester materials in of themselves, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recycle waste materials obtained in the protocol taught by Okamoto because doing so would promote re-use of materials and reduce the load on the environment.
Regarding Claim 17, Okamoto teaches 51 pbw of reactive additive is used relative to 64+128 pbw of PET flakes (approximate amount of fragment material) (¶ 120). Accordingly, Okamoto is seen to be suggestive of additive quantities within the scope of the range claimed.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamoto (JP2011-075865A) in view of Burdeniuc (WO 2022/194587 A2) and Rasoul (US 2020/0062891 A1). As the cited JP publication is in a non-English language, a machine-translated version of the publication will be cited to.
The discussion regarding Okamoto and Burdeniuc within ¶ 47-56 is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 18, Okamoto differs from the subject matter claimed in that a two-step reaction protocol with isocyanate is not described. Rasoul is also directed toward the photocurable compositions with end-capped unsaturated polyesters (Abstract). Rasoul teaches the reaction of isocyanate with polyester can occur in two stages, where low temperatures such as less than 65 degrees C is used first with cooling owing to the reaction being exothermic and a subsequent second stage such as at 65 degrees C is used to complete the reaction (¶ 255-257). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a two-step thermal reaction protocol within the methods of Okamoto because doing so would promote complete reactions while avoiding thermal runaways associated with exothermic reactions as taught by Rasoul. While not giving defined ranges associated with temperatures / timeframes, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Rasoul makes clear using a low temperature in a first stage and a high temperature in a second stage promotes complete reactions while avoiding thermal runaways. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to discover workable/optimal temperatures and timeframes for a given polymer/isocyanate system such as those taught by Okamoto so as to arrive at complete reactions while avoiding thermal runaways.
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 1-9, 12, 13, 17, and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,338,329. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Specifically, claim 1 describes a process of creating photocurable resins via reacting polyurethane foam with the same solvents/catalysts, and subsequently introducing photosensitive groups via reaction with additive such as acrylate (Claims 1-3, 7). The same solvents are taught at claim 2 and the same guanidine catalysts are taught at claim 3. The solvent/catalyst reaction produces oligomers with the same functional groups at claim 4. Since the same materials are being used to create oligomers for subsequent reaction, it stands to reason that such oligomers are dissolved as non-crosslinked polymer fragments in the absence of evidence to the contrary. The ‘329 patent specifically defines the polyurethane foams as those containing a large number of urea, urethane, and ester bonds (Col. 1, Lines 36-40). The position is taken that the breakdown of polyurethane foams to oligomers would intrinsically create “various molecular structures” and a “wide” molecular weight distribution. The remaining limitations of the claims are found within the claims of the ‘329 patent.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN E RIETH whose telephone number is (571)272-6274. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8AM-4PM Mountain Standard 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, Duane Smith can be reached at (571)272-1166. 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.
/STEPHEN E RIETH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759