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 . Claims 17-27 are pending in this application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Group I and Species a. in the reply filed on 08/21/2026 is acknowledged. After further search of the case and search results, it is deemed necessary to withdraw the Restriction Requirement dated 03/05/2026.
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 17-27 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:
a. Claims 17 and 27 and claims dependent thereon are rejected because it is unclear where the end of the claim is. Said claims have three periods, two in the middle of the claim and one at the end of the claim (see below).
PNG
media_image1.png
166
965
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
151
810
media_image2.png
Greyscale
If applicants the last period after 1-x is the end of the claims, applicants have to delete the two extra periods in the middle of the claims.
b. Claim 19 is rejected because it is unclear where the end of the claim is. There is a period in the middle of claim 19 at the end of the definition of variable R*. Applicants have to delete said period if it is a typographical error.
c. In claim 23, the stoichiometry ratio “1,0-3,0” is not clear. How is this different from “1-3” or “1.0-3.0”? Note that the decimal separator is a period (.) in US or other
English-speaking countries and many others, while in many European and Latin American countries it is a comma (,). This affects how numbers like 1.0 or 1,0 are written.
d. Claims 17 and 27 and claims dependent thereon are rejected because the phrase “R is…substituted or…..linear or branched C2-C6 alkynyl group” is indefinite. In the absence of the specific moieties intended to effectuate modification by the “substitution” or attachment to the chemical core claimed, the term “substituted” renders the claims in which it appears indefinite in all occurrences wherein applicants fails to articulate by chemical name, structural formula or sufficiently distinct functional language, the particular moieties applicants regards as those which will facilitate substitution, requisite to identifying the composition of matter claimed.
e. Regarding claims 17-18 and 27, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
f. In claim 17 or elsewhere in the claims, the terms "including, “includes” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
g. Regarding claim 19, the phrase "most preferred" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
h. In claim 27 is rejected because the phrase “benzoxazine ring-opening polymerization (ROP) catalyst comprising” is not clear. The claim starts as a compound claim but then recites ring-opening polymerization and catalyst that may be part of a process or use. What is applicant’s intention? If it is product claim, how is this different from product claim 17? What is the importance of “comprising” in claim 27? Note that “comprising” is an open-ended language that is used in a process or composition claims. It is recommended that applicants delete said claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement, filed on 06/09/2026 has been acknowledged. Please refer to Applicant’s copies of the 1449 submitted herewith.
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kahsay Habte Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)272-0667. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 - 5:00 PM.
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, JEFFREY MURRAY can be reached on 571-272-9023. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Kahsay Habte/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1624
September 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights