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 .
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 14, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8-9, 10-13, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 8 recite bi- or polycyclic amine bases while removing the requirement these same bases be non-nucleophilic. Applicant’s as-filed specification only refers non-nucleophilic bi- and / or polycyclic amine bases for use in the invention. See page 4 lines 20 - page 5 lines 20 of the as-filed specification.
Further, Applicant’s as-filed specification states 1,8-Diazabicyclo[5.4.0]undec-7-ene (DBU) 1,4-diazabicyclo [2.2.2] octane (DABCO), and 1,5-Diazabicyclo[4.3.0]non-5-ene (DBN) are non-nucleophilic. (page 5 lines 15-20)
Chakraborty in “The versatility of DABCO as a reagent in organic synthesis: a review” refers to DABCO as a nucleophile (Abstract) and also in Section VI. Chemical Properties of DABCO as slightly basic but a powerful nucleophile.
Mihara (U.S. 20090258989) teaches DBN (¶[0024]) as nucleophilic and DABCO (¶[0029]) as highly nucleophilic
Yamauchi (U.S. 20140200326) teaches DABCO and DBU are highly nucleophilic. (¶[0037]).
Nemoto (U.S. 20150225512) teaches DABCO and DBU are highly nucleophilic. (¶[0037])
Claims 9, 11-13 and 16-18 are rejected based on their dependency to Claim 8. Claim 10 is not rejected based on dependency to Claim 8 because Claim 10 does not limit the bi/polycyclic amines recited by Claim 8 but limits the base compound listing of alternatives itself.
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 3 and 20 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 3 recites DABCO (1,4-diazabicyclo[2,2,2]octane) as a non-nucleophilic base according to the claims. Chakraborty in “The versatility of DABCO as a reagent in organic synthesis: a review” refers to DABCO as a nucleophile (Abstract) and also in Section VI. Chemical Properties of DABCO as slightly basic but a powerful nucleophile. Therefore, it is indefinite as how DABCO can both be a nucleophilic base and also a non-nucleophilic base according the claims simultaneously. Note also that Applicant’s as-filed specification on page 5 lines 10-20 does not reasonably suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art how to rectify this indefiniteness.
Further, Applicant’s as-filed specification states 1,8-Diazabicyclo[5.4.0]undec-7-ene (DBU) 1,4-diazabicyclo [2.2.2] octane (DABCO), and 1,5-Diazabicyclo[4.3.0]non-5-ene (DBN) are non-nucleophilic. (page 5 lines 15-20)
Chakraborty in “The versatility of DABCO as a reagent in organic synthesis: a review” refers to DABCO as a nucleophile (Abstract) and also in Section VI. Chemical Properties of DABCO as slightly basic but a powerful nucleophile.
Mihara (U.S. 20090258989) teaches DBN (¶[0024]) as nucleophilic and DABCO (¶[0029]) as highly nucleophilic
Yamauchi (U.S. 20140200326) teaches DABCO and DBU are highly nucleophilic. (¶[0037]).
Nemoto (U.S. 20150225512) teaches DABCO and DBU are highly nucleophilic. (¶[0037])
Therefore, it is indefinite as how DBU, DBN and DABCO as recited by claim 10 can both be a nucleophilic base and also a non-nucleophilic base according the claims simultaneously. Note also that Applicant’s as-filed specification on page 5 lines 10-20 does not reasonably suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art how to rectify this indefiniteness.
Claims 3 and 20 are rejected for lack of proper antecedent basis for the recitation of “base compound”. The parent claim limits the base compound to be non-nucleophilic and, therefore, the lack of proper antecedent basis in the claims renders the limitation indefinite as it indefinite what kind of base compound is required; non-nucleophilic or nucleophilic.
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.
Claims 1-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilfred (U.S. 3,397,173) in view of Schubert (U.S. 5,804,668).
Wilfred teaches stable chloroprene sulfur copolymers made from chloroprene monomers, 2,3-dichloro-1,3-butadiene, sulfur (0.4 g) and diethyl xanthogen disulfide (See Table I 0.37-0.40 g ). The amounts are per 100 part of the chloroprene monomer. See also the amounts of these components in the abstract. The sulfur and xanthogen is part of the initial emulsion and therefore at the start of the polymerization. (See column 4 lines 60-75). Sulfur is reasonably suggested to be elemental sulfur as it is only referred to as sulfur and there are no alternative non-elemental sulfurs disclosed. Wilferd exemplifies magnesia (magnesium oxide) which reads over the MgO of Claim 1 and Claim 8.
The above polymerization and amounts read over the sulphur modified chloroprene portion of Claim 1, Claim 4, Claim 5, Claim 6, Claim 8, Claim 11, Claim 12, Claim 13, Claim 15, and Claim 17.
The above chloroprene copolymer is vulcanized by compounding vulcanization ingredients into the copolymer including amines and other vulcanizing agents. (See Column 5 lines 50-Column 6 lines 10).
The amine is not a base compound as recited.
Schubert, working in the field of curing polychloroprene compositions similar to Wilfred and Applicant, teaches the use of a polymer composition (additive) consisting of cyclic amidine compounds along with zinc salts and rubbers to improve the storage life of unvulcanized mixtures of halogenated rubber and ageing resistance of the vulcanizates. (Column 1 lines 65 – Column 2 lines 20. The cyclic amidines that may be used are DBU and DBN with DBU exemplified and particularly preferred. (Column 2 lines 20-30). While MgO is not exemplified in the inventive compositions, there is no teaching or suggestion that it necessarily is excluded from Schubart and Schubart teaches in a synergistic effect from using magnesium oxide and zinc oxide. (Column 1 lines 30-40).
Additionally, Schubert teaches in Column 1 lines 5-15 the use of polymer compounds from amidines, zinc mercapto compounds in vulcanizing rubbers compounds having halogens are distinguished by a reduced tendency towards unwanted post-vulcanization and, at elevated storage temperatures, are resistance to thermal and oxidative degradation and better physical properties.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to practice the invention of Wilfred, in particular those of Example 1a-1c, by substituting an composition of amidine curing agents, zinc salts and rubbers as an additive for the amine curing agent (N-phenyl-1-naphthylamine) exemplified by Wilfred for the advantage of improving the storage life of unvulcanized mixtures of halogenated rubber and improving the aging resistance of vulcanizates of said rubber mixtures taught by Schubert. (Column 2 lines 20-30). Further, one is motivated to add the above compounds from Schubert to reduce tendency towards unwanted post-vulcanization and, at elevated storage temperatures, improve resistance to thermal and oxidative degradation and to have better physical properties (Column 1 lines 5-15) as discussed above from simply using these compounds in general since this passage does not compare to any other process.
Wilfred in Column 1 lines 60-65 is drawn to making chloroprene rubbers which are processable and stable against changes in processability during storage and aging. This is in-line and relevant to Schubert’s teachings that the use of certain polymer supported amidines and zinc mercapto compounds.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose DBN or DBU for the above purpose because they are taught as particularly preferred by Schubert.
A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in the above modification because both Schubert and Wilfred are curing polychloroprene systems and Wilfred does not require any particular type of cure system.
DBN and DBU read over Claim 1, Claim 3, Claim 8 and Claim 10 along with Claim 20.
The vulcanizates produced via Wilfred and Schubert reads over Claim 14 and Claim 18. Additional vulcanizing agents are exemplified in both Wilfred and Schubert which reads over Claim 7
Wilfred exemplifies the cure system with thiurams, for instance. This is compounded in with the above DBN or DBU from Schubert, therefore, this reads over the thiuram in Claims 2, 9 and 16 and it must be “in the presence of” as claimed in Claim 2, Claim 9 and Claim 16.
If Applicant intends to argue there is criticality which gives an unexpected result to the compositions in light of the teachings of the prior art, Applicant is reminded such arguments to unexpected results can only be properly considered when all the factors in MPEP §716.02 are properly taken into account. Overcoming a §103 rejection based on unexpected results requires the combination of three different elements: the results must fairly compare with the prior art, the claims must be commensurate in scope and the results must truly be unexpected. (See MPEP §716.02) Applicant’s showing of allegedly unexpected results must satisfy ALL of these requirements. Additionally, MPEP §716.01(b) states a “nexus” between the claimed invention and the evidence of secondary considerations, such as unexpected results, must be present. The burden rests with Applicant to establish results are unexpected and significant. (MPEP §716.02(b)).
Applicant must argue their results and make the claims commensurate in scope with showing, which includes only one non-nucleophlic base according to the claims and this compound also contains acrylic copolymer and other agents. To fulfil the commensurate in scope requirement Applicant’s results must be probative of the scope of the claims to create the required nexus between the claims and the demonstrations. Additionally, all three requirements above must be meet. The above requirements are not in the alternative (“or”) but an “and” condition.
Claims 1-7, 14, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilfred (U.S. 3,397,173) in view of Musch (U.S. 5,210,152).
Wilfred stable chloroprene sulfur copolymers made from chloroprene monomers, 2,3-dichloro-1,3-butadiene, sulfur (0.4 g) and diethyl xanthogen disulfide (See Table I 0.37-0.40 g ). The amounts are per 100 part of the chloroprene monomer. See also the amounts of these components in the abstract. The sulfur and xanthogen is part of the initial emulsion and therefre at the start of the polymerization. (See column 4 lines 60-75). Sulfur is reasonably suggested to be elemental sulfur as it is only referred to as sulfur and there are no alternative non-elemental sulfurs disclosed.
The above polymerization and amounts read over the sulphur modified chloroprene portion of Claim 1, Claim 4, Claim 5, Claim 6, Claim 15.
The above chloroprene copolymer is vulcanized by compounding vulcanization ingredients into the copolymer including amines and other vulcanizing agents. (See Column 5 lines 50-Column 6 lines 10).
The amine is not a non-nucleophilic bi/polycyclic amine as recited.
Musch, working in the field of curing polychloroprene compositions similar to Wilfred and Applicant, teaches the use of amidine compounds for curing polychloroprene in order to reduce the tendency of the vulcanziates towards undesirable post-vulcanization (Column 1 lines 5-10) and the ageing of the vulcanizate does not deteriorate the mechanical properties. (Column 1 lines 44-50)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to practice the invention of Wilfred, in particular those of Example 1a-1c, by substituting an amidine curing agents for the amine curing agent (N-phenyl-1-naphthylamine) exemplified by Wilfred for the above-described benefits attributed with the using an amidine cure system taught by Musch. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose DBN or DBU for the above purpose because DBN (for instance) is exemplified and DBU is related to DBN. (See Column 4 lines 24-25).
A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in the above modification because both Musch and Wilfred are curing polychloroprene systems and Wilfred does not require any particular type of cure system. In other words, the exemplified cure system of Wilfred may contain magnesium oxide (magnesia) which is not permitted by Musch but Wilfred does not require it. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art is free to tailor the curing systems of Wilfred to the requirements Mush as necessary.
DBN and DBU are considered by Applicant to be non-nucleophilic bases as claimed in Claim 1 and Claim 3 and are diazabicylco compounds according to Claim 20.
The vulcanizates produced via Wilfred and Musch reads over Claim 14. Additional vulcanizing agents are exemplified in both Wilfred and Musch which reads over Claim 7
Wilfred exemplifies the cure system with thiurams, for instance. This is compounded in with the above DBN or DBU from Musch, therefore, this reads over the thiuram in Claims 2, 9 and 16 and it must be “in the presence of” as claimed in Claim 2.
If Applicant intends to argue there is criticality which gives an unexpected result to the compositions in light of the teachings of the prior art, Applicant is reminded such arguments to unexpected results can only be properly considered when all the factors in MPEP §716.02 are properly taken into account. Overcoming a §103 rejection based on unexpected results requires the combination of three different elements: the results must fairly compare with the prior art, the claims must be commensurate in scope and the results must truly be unexpected. (See MPEP §716.02) Applicant’s showing of allegedly unexpected results must satisfy ALL of these requirements. Additionally, MPEP §716.01(b) states a “nexus” between the claimed invention and the evidence of secondary considerations, such as unexpected results, must be present. The burden rests with Applicant to establish results are unexpected and significant. (MPEP §716.02(b)).
Note that under the §112 above DABCO examples are not applicable in arguing allegedly unexpected results at this time because the evidence of record reasonably suggests it is not a non-nucleophilic base.
Applicant must argue their results and make the claims commensurate in scope with showing, which includes only one non-nucleophlic base according to the claims and this compound also contains acrylic copolymer and other agents. To fulfil the commensurate in scope requirement Applicant’s results must be probative of the scope of the claims to create the required nexus between the claims and the demonstrations. Additionally, all three requirements above must be meet. The above requirements are not in the alternative (“or”) but an “and” condition.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 and 21 are allowed. The closest prior art is Wilfred (U.S. 3,397,173) which teaches vulcanized sulfur containing polychloroprene elastomers but fails to teach any of the isopropylethylamine, lithium diisopropylamide or di-tert-butylpyridine for use in the vulcanizable composition. Further, the prior art does not reasonably suggest these compounds for use in the compositions of Wilfred except by using hindsight.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s claim amendments and remarks filed January 14, 2026 have been fully considered but are not sufficient to move the application to allowance. Applicant has amended the claims to add in the non-nucleophilic limitation on the bi- or polycyclic amine base which has necessitated the new §112 rejection of the claims. Additionally, magnesium oxide as been removed from the composition of Claim 1. This has necessitated reapplication of the §112 and §103 rejections of record over Wilfred and Musch from the non-final rejection of June 2, 2026 that were previously overcome by the recitation of magnesium oxide.
For clarity of the record, the Claim 8’s method and dependent claims have not been amended as Claim 1, and, therefore, the §112 new matter rejection previously made is maintained against these claims. Wilfred and Musch previously applied is also not applied against Claim 8 and its dependent claims for reasons of record.
Applicant’s remarks filed January 14, 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues they are their own lexicographer and can disagree with the prior art on the chemical nature of compounds. This argument is not persuasive. The prior art of record does not agree with Applicant’s characterization of the genus of non-nucleophilic compounds recited by the claims including DABCO, DBN and DBU and the evidence of record does not support their argument that there is a disagreement in the art as to the chemical properties of these compounds. In other words, Applicant argues these compounds do not reaction in a nucleophilic manner while the prior art states they are nucleophilic without any hint of controversy in the manner. Furthermore, if the prior art does not agree with Applicant on this matter, then how can one of ordinary skill in the art have clarity, deliberateness and precision in figure out what is nucleophilic or non-nucleophilic in the entire scope of the claimed non-nucleophilic bi- or polycyclic amine bases when several of them listed by Applicant, DABCO, DBN and DBU, are already known to be nucleophilic. In other words, Applicant has not stated every single possible non-nucleophilic bi- or polycyclic amine bases in which they do not agree with the nucleophilicity of these bases with respect to the prior art to support their argument the requisite clarity, deliberateness and precision in the as-filed specification. To put it another way, how is one of ordinary skill in the art supposed to figure out what bases are non-nucleophilic when Applicant does not agree with the prior art’s assessment of nucleophilicity and does not state anything about why or how they have this disagreement with the prior art to correctly identify the correct non-nucleophilic bi- or polycyclic amine bases for use in the invention other than DABCO, DBN, and DBU? Should they contact Applicant to see if the Applicant considers the base non-nucleophilic or nucleophilic?
Applicant is strongly encouraged to take their argument including their supporting citation of In re Paulsen to the board of appeals for their input on the matter.
Applicant may overcome these §112 rejection by simply amending the broadest claims to state DABCO, DBU and DBN as the base (or simply state a compound selected from the group consisting of DABCO, DBU and DBN) as they have done with Claim 19’s specific bases, for instance, rather than the much broader recitation of any non-nucleophilic bi- or polycyclic amine base as currently written. Claim 8’s §112 can be overcome in a similar manner.
Applicant argues that Schubert can only be motivated to modify Wilfred if Wilfred uses the exact same amine cure systems that Schubert is improving against. This argument is not persuasive.
Wilfred in Column 1 lines 60-65 is drawn to making chloroprene rubbers which are processable and stable against changes in processability during storage and aging. This is in-line and relevant to Schubert’s teachings that the use of certain polymer supported amidines and zinc mercapto compounds.
Schubert is drawn to similar improvements in storage stability and aging in halogenated rubber vulcanizations. The end result is the same. A halogenated rubber that has improved storage stability and aging resistance by using the amidines and zinc compounds of Schubert and Wilfred. There is nothing in Schubert’s teachings that undermines anything in Wilfred and vice versa. Applicant is essentially arguing the only way to apply Schubert to other halogenated rubber polymerizations is if the person of ordinary skill in the art is seeking to improve based on Schubert improvement path. Applicant essentially arguing the end result does not matter. This is no persuasive. The end result is halogenated rubber vulcanizates which have improved storage stability and aging properties over the vulcanizates without Schubert’s teachings. Applicant has presented no evidence to reasonably suggest that Wilfred’s process does not stand to be improved, nor that Wilfred’s teachings somehow have better storage stability and aging over Schubert’s. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues Musch is a downgrade compared to Schubert and, therefore, there is no motivation to combine Wilfred with Musch knowing the results of Schubert. This argument is not persuasive. If a person of ordinary skill in the art cannot modify Wilfred with Schubert because the Schubert is teaching an improvement over what is in Musch, as Applicant argues, then it seems one of ordinary skill can readily improve Wilfred with Musch. Additionally, by doing so, now the path to improving Wilfred with Schubert is clear because Musch has the process that Schubert is improving on and one of ordinary skill can then see how this sets up various levels of improved storage stability and aging shown by the prior art to improve over Wilfred. There is nothing overtly non-motivating about creating different tiers of material properties (storage stability and aging resistance) in halogen containing rubber vulcanizates. (Wilfred improves with Musch which improves with Schubert)
Applicant argues their examples demonstrate criticality in using xanthogen disulphide. This is taken as an argument to unexpected results. This argument is not persuasive. Wilfred already exemplifies xanthogen disulphide and elemental sulfur vulcanizations. Therefore, Wilfred is closer prior art. Applicant does not compare against different xanthogen disulfphides (Wilfred exemplifies diethyl). Therefore, the evidence of record does not support Applicant’s arguments that by using elemental sulfur and a xanthogen disulphide leads to unexpectedly improved crosslink density, increased compression set and increase internal temperature. Wilfred simply does not measure these properties but that does not mean they are not present over vulcanizations without elemental sulfur and xanthogen disulphide.
Further, If Applicant intends to argue there is criticality which gives an unexpected result to the compositions in light of the teachings of the prior art, Applicant is reminded such arguments to unexpected results can only be properly considered when all the factors in MPEP §716.02 are properly taken into account. Overcoming a §103 rejection based on unexpected results requires the combination of three different elements: the results must fairly compare with the prior art, the claims must be commensurate in scope and the results must truly be unexpected. (See MPEP §716.02) Applicant’s showing of allegedly unexpected results must satisfy ALL of these requirements. Additionally, MPEP §716.01(b) states a “nexus” between the claimed invention and the evidence of secondary considerations, such as unexpected results, must be present. The burden rests with Applicant to establish results are unexpected and significant. (MPEP §716.02(b)).
Note that under the §112 above DABCO examples are not applicable in arguing allegedly unexpected results at this time because the evidence of record reasonably suggests it is not a non-nucleophilic base.
Applicant must argue their results and make the claims commensurate in scope with showing, which includes only one non-nucleophlic base according to the claims and this compound also contains acrylic copolymer and other agents. To fulfil the commensurate in scope requirement Applicant’s results must be probative of the scope of the claims to create the required nexus between the claims and the demonstrations. Additionally, all three requirements above must be meet. The above requirements are not in the alternative (“or”) but an “and” condition. At the present time, Applicant’s claims are not commensurate in scope with the showing of allegedly unexpected results as there are elements missing as discussed above and only one “non-nucleophilic” amine base (DABCO) is demonstrated. It is unclear how this one amine base is probative of any non-nucleophilic base especially in light of Applicant stating the non-nucleophilicity of the amine based must be present but the art does not agree that DABCO is non-nucleophilic. In other words, there are no results probative of other amines including other cyclic amines that give Applicant’s allegedly unexpected results. Additionally, there indication of what the additional compounds found in the examples such as the acrylic copolymer and other agents have on the nature of Applicant’s allegedly unexpected results.
Applicant is strongly encouraged to exercise their right to appeal the above decision of the examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M RODD whose telephone number is (571)270-1299. The examiner can normally be reached 7 am - 3:30 pm (Pacific).
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at (571) 272-1302. 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.
/Christopher M Rodd/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766