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 .
Claims 17-33 are pending as submitted on 5/20/2026.
Claims 22-33 stand withdrawn from consideration.
No new grounds of rejection have been made. Therefore, this action is properly made final. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 17-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu et al (Synthesis and Characterization of Poly (Aryl Ether Ketone Sulfone) Copolymers, Polymer Preprints, Vol 26, Issue 2, pp 277-280, 1985; copy provided with the action mailed on 10/6/2025). The reasons are the same as previously set forth in the action mailed on 1/20/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/20/2026 have been fully considered.
The rejection over Wu finds that in Table 2 (Sample No 5), Wu discloses a copolymer formed by reaction of difluorobenzophenone (DFBP) with a biphenol polysulfone oligomer (biphenol PSF) having a molecular weight of 2000 (i.e., a molecular weight within a range of 1990-3794, which corresponds to a value of “x” within the presently claimed range of 4.5 to 9), and that the copolymer is a PPSU according to instant formula I consisting essentially of phenylene sulfone segments A and B (according to instant formula II) coupled by benzophenone units derived from DFBP.
Applicant argues (p 5) that Wu does not anticipate claim 17 because while Wu discloses that the biphenol PSF has a theoretical molecular weight of 2000 (which corresponds to an “x” value within the claimed range of 4.5 to 9), the analyzed molecular weight of the oligomer (by end-group analysis) is 1960. Applicant argues that the analytical molecular weight value of Wu’s oligomer corresponds to an “x” value which is slightly below the claimed range of 4.5 to 9 (a molecular weight of 1960 corresponds to an “x” value of ~4.43), and that therefore, the actual PPSU synthesized by Wu does not fall within the scope of the claimed range.
The examiner agrees that according to Table 1 of Wu, the intended/theoretical molecular weight of Wu’s oligomer (2000) differs from the analytical molecular weight of Wu’s oligomer (1960). However, Wu contains an unambiguous disclosure of a (theoretical) PPSU formed from reaction of difluorobenzophenone (DFBP) with a biphenol polysulfone oligomer (biphenol PSF) having a molecular weight of 2000. Applicant has not provided any reasoning or evidence to establish that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been able to synthesize a PPSU from a biphenol PSF having a molecular weight of 2000, as disclosed by Wu. Therefore, for at least the reason that Wu’s (theoretical) example of a PPSU formed from reaction of difluorobenzophenone (DFBP) with a biphenol polysulfone oligomer (biphenol PSF) having a molecular weight of 2000 falls within the scope of the instant claims, Applicant’s argument (that Wu does not anticipate the present claims because the analytical MW value of Wu’s oligomer falls outside the claimed range) is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL KAHN whose telephone number is (571)270-7346. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8-5.
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.
/RACHEL KAHN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights