DETAILED ACTION
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 with traverse of Group I, species b), claims 1-3, 6, 8 and 9 in the reply filed on 11/12/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that both claims 1 and 13 include a hydrogenated functionalized polymer having chains comprising substantially the same structural formula and every feature of claim 1 is recited in claim 13, with the only difference being further definition of the alkyl group structures in claim 13. This is not found persuasive because Claim 1 is to a hydrogenated functionalized polymer and Claim 13 is to a different hydrogenated functionalized rubber polymer that does not have the requirements of the hydrogenated functionalized polymer of Claim 1.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 13 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 1-3, 6, 8 and 9 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, and as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01.
The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: Claim 1 recites “A hydrogenated functionalized polymer comprising: a functionalized polydiene …, wherein the functionalized polydiene produced from a living anionic elastomer initiated with a functionalized lithium initiator of the formula (I)...” There appears to be some missing language or structural element here. After “wherein the functionalized polydiene” the claim is missing some structural element to which the “wherein” is referring. What is “wherein”? “Wherein” what? It is unclear what actual polymer applicant is claiming.
The balance of the claims depend from claim 1.
Further, claim 2 recites “wherein R1, R2, and R3 represent alkyl groups containing from 1 to 4 carbon atoms” in Claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent bases for “R1” in claim 1.
Also, claim 3 recites “The rubber polymer of claim 1”. There is insufficient antecedent bases for the “rubber polymer” in claim 1.
The polymer applicant is claiming is so unclear from the claims that it is impossible to make a determination of prior art. However, the following prior art is made of record and not relied upon, but appear to be pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Murray et al. (US 2020/0181389) teach a functionalized diene polymer produced by adding a polymerization terminator to a living anionic polymer.
Tamao et al. ("Metal catalyzed cross-coupling reactions of carbanions a to silafunctional groups. New a-hydrokyalkylanion equivalents," Tetrahedron Letters, Vol. 25, No. 18, pp 1909-1912, 1984) teach a compound consistent with the present formula (I) that serves as a precursor to a carbanion with strong reactivity.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELECHI CHIDI EGWIM whose telephone number is (571)272-1099. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-7.
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, Robert Jones can be reached at (571) 270-7733. 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.
/KELECHI C EGWIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
KCE
Prosecution Insights