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 of Group I. in the reply filed on 1/27/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 10-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected grouping of invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/27/2026. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-9 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. The term s “ good” and “poor ” in claim 1 are relative term s which renders the claim s indefinite. The term s “ good” and “poor ” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claims are confusing as to intent because it can not be definitively ascertained what solvents are intended to be included and/or excluded through the use of the expressions “ good” and “poor ” that are utilized to identify the solvents of the blends set forth by the claims without specific solubility parameters, including degrees and particular copolymers utilized to determine the parameters, being set forth by the claims so that the metes and bounds of the claims can be definitively ascertained . Appropriate correction is required. Claims 1 recites the limitation "the polyacrylonitrile copolymer" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims are confusing as to intent because claim 1 refers back to the polyacrylonitrile copolymer, but without a previous recitation of such a component it can not be determined what claim component is being referred back to by this recitation of the claims and/or whether polyacrylonitrile copolymer is intended to be included or excluded by the claims. Appropriate correction is required. Claims are further confusing as to intent because the intended boiling points required of the solvents of the blends of the claims can not be definitively ascertained without the materials upon which their determination is based being set forth by the claims. Recitation of an undefined “recording medium” and its being heated to form a three-dimensional image as a basis for the lower limits of the boiling points of the solvents of the instantly claimed blends renders the claims confusing as to intent because it can not be definiti vely ascertained what recording mediums, and consequently temperatures required to form a 3-D image and, by extension, lower boiling point endpoints for the solvents of the solvent blends of the claims are intended to be. Appropriate rejection is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Uyama et al.( 2013/0058858) . Uyama et al. discloses combinations of good and poor solvents for polyacrylonitrile meeting the specific selections of applicants’ claims [ note: claims 2, 3 and 4] in amounts, including preferred and exemplified amounts, meeting the requirements of the claims, including claim 9 {see abstract, paras [0034] & [0035] , Examples and C laims }. Regarding the boiling points of the solvents as expressed by the claims, as well as the ranges of dynamic and static surface tension values of claims 5-7 and the ranges of viscosity values of claim 8, it is held that case law holds that a material and its properties are inseparable. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir.1990). Further, “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." And, "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Best, 562 F2d 1252, 1254, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), Titanium Metals Corp v Banner, 778 F2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed Cir 1985), In re Ludtke , 441 F2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) and Northam Warren Corp v D F Newfield Co, 7 F Supp 773, 22 USPQ 313 (EDNY 1934). Accordingly, it is held that the good and poor solvents of the blends of Uyama et al. inherently possess boiling points as defined by the claims owing to the closeness of their specific composition, and the blends of the good and poor solvents of Uyama et al. inherently possess the dynamic and static surface tension values and viscosity values as set forth by claims 5 & 6, 7 and 8, respectively, owing to the closeness of their specific material composition. Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Das et al.{ Electrochimica Acta Doc} . Das et al. discloses combinations of solvents meeting the specific selections of applicants’ claims [ note: claims 2, 3and 4] in amounts, including exemplified amounts, meeting the requirements of the claims, including claim 9 {see abstract, as well as the entire document}. Regarding the boiling points of the solvents as expressed by the claims, as well as the ranges of dynamic and static surface tension values of claims 5-7 and the ranges of viscosity values of claim 8, it is held that case law holds that a material and its properties are inseparable. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir.1990). Further, “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." And, "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Best, 562 F2d 1252, 1254, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), Titanium Metals Corp v Banner, 778 F2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed Cir 1985), In re Ludtke , 441 F2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) and Northam Warren Corp v D F Newfield Co, 7 F Supp 773, 22 USPQ 313 (EDNY 1934). Accordingly, it is held that the solvents of the blends of Das et al. inherently possess boiling points as defined by the claims owing to the closeness of their specific composition, and the blends of the good and poor solvents of Das et al. inherently possess the dynamic and static surface tension values and viscosity values as set forth by claims 5 & 6, 7 and 8, respectively, owing to the closeness of their specific material composition. Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang et al.{ J. of O. Chem Doc } . Yang et al. discloses combinations of solvents meeting the specific selections of applicants’ claims [ note: claims 2, 3and 4] in amounts, including exemplified amounts, meeting the requirements of the claims, including claim 9 {see abstract, as well as the entire document}. Regarding the boiling points of the solvents as expressed by the claims, as well as the ranges of dynamic and static surface tension values of claims 5-7 and the ranges of viscosity values of claim 8, it is held that case law holds that a material and its properties are inseparable. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir.1990). Further, “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." And, "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Best, 562 F2d 1252, 1254, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), Titanium Metals Corp v Banner, 778 F2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed Cir 1985), In re Ludtke , 441 F2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) and Northam Warren Corp v D F Newfield Co, 7 F Supp 773, 22 USPQ 313 (EDNY 1934). Accordingly, it is held that the solvents of the blends of Yang et al. inherently possess boiling points as defined by the claims owing to the closeness of their specific composition, and the blends of the good and poor solvents of Yang et al. inherently possess the dynamic and static surface tension values and viscosity values as set forth by claims 5 & 6, 7 and 8, respectively, owing to the closeness of their specific material composition. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chiwata is cited for its disclosure of closely related compositions, blends, properties and application to those of the instant concern {see paras [0196] -[ 0205]}. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Cooney whose telephone number is 571-272-1070. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9 to 6. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Heidi Riviere Kelley, can be reached on 571-270-1831. 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. /JOHN M COONEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765