CTNF 18/552,088 CTNF 78011 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Objections In each of claims 1, 7, 10, 12, 18, 19, 20, and 21, Applicant employs a symbol a “squiggly line” symbol as a placeholder for the word “to” where describing numerical ranges and defining aspects of different formulae. Although the Examiner is confident in his interpretation given that there seems to be no other reasonable construal, this is not a widely accepted convention and Applicant is required to replace said squiggly lines with “to” wherever they appear in these claims. Claims 10 and 19 are objected to because the anion designations in the formulae are difficult to make out. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation Applicant is advised that claim 18 is regarded as tantamount to a compound claim insofar as “transesterification catalyst for producing…” is regarded merely as an indication of intended use. From MPEP 2112.02, “If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co. , 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See also Rowe v. Dror , 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation”); Kropa v. Robie , 187 F.2d at 152, 88 USPQ2d at 480-81 (preamble is not a limitation where claim is directed to a product and the preamble merely recites a property inherent in an old product defined by the remainder of the claim). Also, where there are lines drawn from the nitrogen atoms in different representations of the phosphazenium compound, it is presumed that those lines connote a bond to a methyl group as is often the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Li et al., CN 108239265. See formulae I and II in paragraphs [0010-0011] of the original and the accompanying description of the variables R, X, and Z in paragraphs [0016-0017] of the translation. This description correlates with Formula (1) where each of “a” through “d” are zero and the various R groups are C 1-6 alkyl groups . 07-15 AIA Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Fujii et al., JP 2011-219426. See the last entry in Table 1 where a phosphazenium compound conforming with formula (1) is disclosed. The prior art compound adheres structurally where each of “a” through “d” is one and all of the R groups are methyl . 07-15 AIA Claim s 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by the article entitled “Novel, Very Strong, Uncharged Auxiliary Bases; Design and Synthesis of Monomeric and Polymer-bund Triaminophosphorae Bases of Broadly-varied Steric Demand” authored by Schwesinger et al. and published in Chemische Berichte (1994) 127, 2435-2454 . Applicant is directed to formula 8 + at the bottom of the left column on page 2437 where there is depicted a compound anticipatory of (1e’) in claim 19. This compound also is within the scope formula (1) of claim 18 where “a” through “d” are zero and the pairs R 2 /R 3 and R 6 /R 7 join together to form rings as claim 18 allows . 07-15 AIA Claim s 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Nobori et al., EP 791600 . Example 4 teaches a compound anticipatory of formula (1a’) in claim 19 where L 1- is a phenolate anion. This compound also is within the scope formula (1) of claim 18 where “a” through “d” are zero and all of the R groups are methyl . 07-15 AIA Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Yamazaki et al., JP 11-005833 . Applicant is directed to paragraph [0009] where a phosphazenium framework anticipatory of formula (1) in claim 18 is disclosed (the definitions of the R groups strongly overlapping in scope). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-15 and 20-22 are allowable. The prior art neither teaches the employment of compounds adhering to formulae (1) or (2) as transesterification catalysts in the formation of polyesters/polycarbonates from diaryl carbonates/dicarboxylic acid ester nor polyester/polycarbonate products for which the impurity levels associated with several by-products set forth in claim 21 is disclosed. The Examiner also perceived that similarly low levels of said products couldn’t be properly held as inherently satisfied by other prior art copolymerization systems where the catalyst used was different. WO 2020/079573 is of interest for its description of the use of similar catalysts for copolymerizing carbon dioxide and epoxides to prepare aliphatic polycarbonates. CN 108239265, cited above, and JP 2017/171709 both disclose the employment of phosphazenium salts as catalysts for ring-opening lactones. JP 11-005833, also cited above, is perhaps most germane for its description of polyoxyalkylene glycols being made in the presence of an anticipatory phosphazenium catalyst by the ring-opening of epoxide compounds and their subsequent reaction with polycarboxylic anhydride, as opposed to polycarboxylic acid. The Examiner had contemplated rejecting claim 19 over this same disclosure as rendering obvious formula (1a’) where L 1- is a BPA monoanion but [0009] stipulates that not all of “a” through “d” can be zero simultaneously. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC S ZIMMER whose telephone number is (571)272-1096. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00. 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, Heidi Kelley can be reached at 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. April 2, 2026 /MARC S ZIMMER/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1765 Application/Control Number: 18/552,088 Page 2 Art Unit: 1765 Application/Control Number: 18/552,088 Page 3 Art Unit: 1765 Application/Control Number: 18/552,088 Page 4 Art Unit: 1765 Application/Control Number: 18/552,088 Page 5 Art Unit: 1765 Application/Control Number: 18/552,088 Page 6 Art Unit: 1765