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Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.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.
The new grounds of rejection set forth below for claims 2, 4, 7-8, 10, and 12-13 are necessitated by Applicant’s amendment filed on Jun. 11, 2026. In particular, claims 2 and 4 have been amended to include different limitations regarding a solution and regarding a copolymer. The newly amended claims were not present at the time of the preceding Office action. The ground of rejection set forth below for claim 6 is the same as that set forth in the previous Office action mailed on Mar. 11, 2026. For these reasons, the present action is properly made final.
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. § 112(b)
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.
Claims 2, 4, 6-8, 10, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites a step vii) of collecting a polymer, and the claim subsequently recites features of “said solution” and “the solution”.
The claim previously recites (in step i)) “an aqueous ammonium salt solution” and “the aqueous solution”.
The previously recited solution is, by step vii) of the recited process, transformed by the process and thus no longer exists in its previously recited form. The recitation of “said solution” in step vii) does not set forth with reasonable clarity whether it is a reference to the solution previously recited in step i) or else if it is intended as a reference to a (unrecited) solution including the polymerization solvent of step vii).
Claims 7-8, 10, and 12-13 are dependent upon claim 2, and they are indefinite for the same reason.
Claim 4 recites limitations regarding “the copolymers” (the first line of the claim), and the claim subsequently recites amounts of monomers based upon “the copolymer” (the last two lines of the claim). The former limitation refers to copolymers (plural), and the latter limitation refers to a copolymer (singular). The claim does not set forth with reasonable clarity whether it requires one copolymer or else multiple copolymers.
Claim 6 recites “an average numerical molecular weight”. The phrase “numerical molecular weight” is a nonstandard term that is not defined in the specification or claims. The claim does not set forth the meaning of a numerical molecular weight with reasonable clarity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 11, and 14-15 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed Jun. 11, 2026 (herein “Remarks”) have been fully considered and they are persuasive in part.
Several of the positions set forth under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been withdrawn in light of the amendments of the claims. In light of the amendments of the claims, new grounds of rejection of claims 2, 4, 7-8, 10, and 12-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been set forth above.
Regarding the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b): Applicant argues that a molecular weight is expressed as a statistical average, and the number-average is calculated by a formula. This argument is unpersuasive because the claim recites “an average numerical molecular weight” which employs different terminology than the argued number-average molecular weight.
The objection to the drawing and the specification has been withdrawn in light of the amendment of the drawing and the specification.
Conclusion
This action is properly final because Applicant's amendment necessitated some of the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action, and because the remainder of the rejections are on the same grounds as set forth in the previous Office Action mailed on Mar. 11, 2026. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). See MPEP § 706.07(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 extension fee 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.
This action is a final rejection and is intended to close the prosecution of this application. Applicant's reply under 37 CFR § 1.113 to this action is limited either to an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board or to an amendment complying with the requirements set forth below.
If applicant should desire to appeal any rejection made by the examiner, a Notice of Appeal must be filed within the period for reply identifying the rejected claim or claims appealed. The Notice of Appeal must be accompanied by the required appeal fee.
If applicant should desire to file an amendment, entry of a proposed amendment after final rejection cannot be made as a matter of right unless it merely cancels claims or complies with a formal requirement made earlier. Amendments touching the merits of the application which otherwise might not be proper may be admitted upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why they are necessary and why they were not presented earlier.
A reply under 37 CFR § 1.113 to a final rejection must include the appeal from, or cancellation of, each rejected claim. The filing of an amendment after final rejection, whether or not it is entered, does not stop the running of the statutory period for reply to the final rejection unless the examiner holds the claims to be in condition for allowance. Accordingly, if a Notice of Appeal has not been filed properly within the period for reply, or any extension of this period obtained under either 37 CFR 1.136(a) or (b), the application will become abandoned.
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
Prosecution Insights