CTNF 18/555,991 CTNF 100180 DETAILED ACTION 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. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. 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 s 1-2, 11-12, 14-16, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Arrigoni et al, WO2018141750 . Regarding claim 1, and 16, Arrigoni teaches a thermoplastic composition comprising a polyamide block polymer (A1), a thermoplastic polymer which can be thermoplastic polyurethane (A2), a diorganopolysiloxane (B), catalyst (C), and additives (D), abstract and ¶[0046]. Specifically, Arrigoni teaches the compositions of examples 1-4 shown in Table 3 ¶[0098] which have blends of silicone rubber 1 or 2 with a polyether block amide (PEBA 3) and thermoplastic polyurethanes TPU 1 or TPU 2. The amounts of PEBA 3 in the examples are 47.02% and 47.82%, which anticipates the claimed range of the polyamide polyether copolymer. The amounts of the TPU used is 26.49% and 26.09%, which anticipates the claimed range for the thermoplastic polyurethane. Table 4, page 21, shows the test results of the cured samples, measured at room temperature, in the second row the tensile strength at 100% elongation is 5.1 MPa, 5.4 MPa, 4.5 MPa, and 4.6 MPa for examples 1-4, this corresponds to the tensile modulus at 100% and anticipates the claimed tensile modulus range of claims 1 and 16. Regarding claims 2, 12, and 19 , the difference between these claims and claim 1 is that the composition is a reaction product of the PEBA and TPU, Arrigoni teaches that the components are mixed and vulcanization is carried out in a twin-screw extruder, ¶[0094], which reads on the composition obtained by the reaction of the components, and Arrigoni teaches the PEBA and TPU within the claimed ranges with the claimed modulus as explained for claim 1. Additionally, Arrigoni teaches the process of claim 12, based on the mixing and vulcanization described in ¶[0094], and teaches the thermoplastic polymers are melted during mixing ¶[0073]. Regarding claim 11, Arrigoni teaches the polyamide blocks in the PEBA copolymer are from PA12, PA6/12, PA6, PA6,6, or PA6,10 and the polyether block is from PEG, ¶[0043]. Regarding claims 14-15 , Arrigoni teaches articles made by the composition such as sports articles and electronic parts, ¶¶[0080-0081]. And further teaches a process of making the articles by injection moulding ¶[0088] . 07-15 AIA Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Arrigoni et al, WO2018141750 as evidenced by the Desmopan TPU Product Guide . Regarding claim 10 , Arrigoni teaches thermoplastic polyurethanes are copolymers of hard and soft blocks, where TPU is comprised of polyurethane hard blocks and polyether or polyester blocks as the soft (flexible) portion, ¶0005]. Arrigoni exemplifies Desmopan 85085 DP0063 in the materials section ¶[0093], and as evidenced by the Desmopan TPU Product Guide, page 4 shows the meaning behind the numbers in the product name. The first 8 means it is based on HDI, hexamethylene diisocyanate, and then the next 5 means it is based on polyester-polyether hybrid . 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 7, 12, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by the publication “Investigation of Rheological and Mechanical Properties of Polyether Block/AmideThermoplastic Polyurethane Blends Prepared Using Twin Screw Extrusion,” by S. Birka et al provided in applicant’s IDS . Regarding claims 1 and 16, Birkar teaches compositions comprising blends of PEBAX 5533 and TPU Desmopan 9370A, pages 6-7, and see Table 1 on page 7 which shows the percents of the blends. T20, T40, and T60 have weight percents within the claimed ranges. On page 20, Fig. 9a shows the tensile modulus at different strains, all of which are below 150 MPa and 100 MPa for claims 1 and 16. Regarding claims 7 and 17 , Birkar teaches the tan delta of the blends in Figure 7a page 17. At approximately 23°C, all of the tan delta results are below 0.12 and 0.10 of claims 7 and 17. Regarding claims 12, 14-15 , Birka teaches melt blended in a twin-screw extruder, and an article for testing is made by injection molding each blend into a mold, page 7 . 07-15 AIA Claim s 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by the publication “Investigation of Rheological and Mechanical Properties of Polyether Block/AmideThermoplastic Polyurethane Blends Prepared Using Twin Screw Extrusion,” by S. Birka et al as evidenced by the Desmopan TPU Product Guide and the brochure “Pebax Elastomers A Polymer in Motion” from Arkema . Regarding claims 6 and 18, Birka teaches the blends are made with PEBAX 5533 and Desmopan 9370A, table 1 page 7. As evidenced by the Desmopan TPU product guide, the density of 9370A is 1060 kg/m 3 (1.06 g/cm 3 ), page 22. The density of PEBAX 5533 is 1.01 g/cm 3 , page 4. Because both products have densities less than the claimed 1.12 and 1.1, and the blends by Birka consist of only these two products, then any blend thereof will have a density less than 1.12 and 1.1 . 07-15 AIA Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by the publication “Investigation of Rheological and Mechanical Properties of Polyether Block/AmideThermoplastic Polyurethane Blends Prepared Using Twin Screw Extrusion,” by S. Birka et al as evidenced by the by the Desmopan TPU Product Guide and the Shore Durometer Hardness Conversion Reference Chart . Regarding claim 8, Birka teaches the PEBAX5533 has a Shore D durometer of 54, page 7 lines 1-2. The Desmopan 9370A has a durometer of 70 A according the Desmopan Product Guide, page 22. A durometer of 70 shore A is equal to about a 22 Shore D according to the Duromoeter conversion chart. Therefore both products satisfy the claim . 07-15 AIA Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by the publication “Investigation of Rheological and Mechanical Properties of Polyether Block/AmideThermoplastic Polyurethane Blends Prepared Using Twin Screw Extrusion,” by S. Birka et al as evidenced by the Desmopan 9370A Statement of Food contact Use by Covestro provided in applicant’s IDS and the Desmopan TPU Product Guide . Regarding claim 10, the document by Covestro lists the raw materials in the Desmopan 9370A, on page 1, tetrahydrofuran and diphenylmethane-4,4’diisocyanate are listed as components which read on the claimed flexible and rigid blocks. Additionally the Desmopan TPU guide also has 9370A listed as an ether grade, page 22, which reads on the polyether blocks . 07-15 AIA Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by the publication “Investigation of Rheological and Mechanical Properties of Polyether Block/AmideThermoplastic Polyurethane Blends Prepared Using Twin Screw Extrusion,” by S. Birka et al as evidenced by the article “Gas Sorption and Characterization of Poly(ether-b-amide) Segmented Block Copolymers,” Bondar et al provided in applicant’s IDS . Regarding claim 11, Birka exemplifies PEBAX 5533, page 7, Bondar tests physical properties of PEBAX 5533. On page 3 Table I, Bondar shows that PEBAX5533 is made of polytetramethylene oxide, PTMEO, and PA12, which reads on the polyether block and polyamide 12 of the claim . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arrigoni et al, WO-2018141750 as evidenced by the Shore Durometer Hardness Conversion Reference Chart and as evidenced by the Desmopan TPU Product Guide . Regarding claim 8 , Arrigoni teaches the claimed invention according to claim 1 as explained above. Arrigoni exemplifies the PEBA 3 used in examples 1-4 as having a durometer of 25 shore D, ¶[0093]. Arrigoni teaches in the broader disclosure that the durometer of the PEBA is below 90 shore A, ¶[0011], which as shown in the Shore Durometer Hardness Conversion Reference Chart, a 90 shore A is about 39 shore D, therefore Arrigoni teaches blending PEBAs with a shore D durometer of 39 or lower, which reads on the claimed range of greater than 30 shore D. Additionally, as evidenced by the Desmopan TPU Product Guide, the durometer of the Desmopan 85085 is an 85 A, as shown on page 4 of the guide, the last two numbers refer to the durometer, and as shown in the Durometer Conversion Chart, 85 A is about a 33 shore D, which is less than the claimed 75 shore D. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the PEBA with 25 shore D durometer for one that is 39 shore D or less in the compositions of examples 1-4 with the motivation of producing another permutation of a thermoplastic elastomer blend of PEBA/TPU/silicone for use in electronics and sports articles as taught by Arrigoni . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arrigoni et al, WO2018141750 . Regarding claim 9, Arrigoni teaches the claimed invention according to claim 1 as explained above. Arrigoni is silent as to the percentage of total flexible blocks in the compositions. In the broader disclosure it is taught that the PEBA comprises 5-95 wt.% flexible blocks, ¶[0026]. The TPU comprises some amount of polyether flexible blocks ¶[0005] greater than 0%. The total amount of thermoplastic polymers (A) to polysiloxane (B) is a ratio of 50:50 to 95:5 ¶[0022]. The amount of flexible blocks in the PEBA alone would be 2.5-90.25 wt.%, which encompasses the claimed range. Therefore the total amount of flexible blocks from both PEBA and TPU overlaps or encompasses the claimed range of 30-80%, based on the total composition. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be prima facie obvious. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-3, 10-16, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al US20070060707 in view of the web article “Basic Properties of Elastomers” published by Eriks O-ring.info, snapshot from 12/8/2019 obtained from the Wayback Machine . Regarding Claims 1, 2, 16, and 19-20, Park teaches a composition for seals and gaskets comprising a cured or crosslinked polyurethane in a thermoplastic material matrix, abstract and ¶[0003]. The composition is made by dynamic vulcanization of the urethane prepolymer with curing agent and thermoplastic matrix, abstract, which reads on the reaction of claims 2, 19-20. The thermoplastic matrix can be polyamide/polyether copolymer (PEBA), ¶[0047], and the urethane prepolymer can form a thermoplastic polyurethane ¶[0021] and where a polyol is used as the curing agent for the prepolymer, the urethane formed has the properties of a thermoplastic polyurethane, ¶[0025] and see claim 16. The prepolymer is a reaction product of one or more polymeric polyol and one or more polyisocyanates, ¶[0020], which reads on the TPU precursors of claims 2 and 20. Park exemplifies an amount of PEBAX MX1205 in examples 4 and 5 in the table shown ¶[0087], that is equal to 40 wt.% and 46 wt.%, which falls within the claimed range. The urethane prepolymer Noxtite MS-640S is blended at 40 wt.% and 37 wt.% respectively, which falls within the claimed range. Park teaches compositions for seals, gaskets, and O-rings ¶[0019] and teaches the tensile strength of the formulations measured at 100°C, table in ¶[0087], but is silent as to tensile modulus of the compositions. The web article “Basic Properties of Elastomers” published by Eriks O-ring.info shows typical properties of elastomeric O-rings and seals comprised of various elastomers. The tensile modulus measured at 100% is the second row on page 2, all of which have a modulus less than the claimed 150 MPa and 100 MPa. These elastomeric materials also exhibit good heat ageing and environmental resistance, as shown in the rest of the rows in the chart. When the prior art is silent to certain physical properties of the products, the skilled person will look to industry articles for what the appropriate properties should be for those products, such as the tensile modulus for seals and gaskets. Park and the web article are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of thermoplastic elastomers and the properties and uses thereof. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have practiced the invention of Park and obtained a tensile modulus of less than 150 MPa and less than 100 MPa with the motivation of producing a thermoplastic elastomer seal or gasket with good heat and environmental resistance as taught by Park, because a tensile modulus of less than 150 MPa and 100 MPa is the typical tensile modulus for elastomer gaskets and seals that have good heat and environmental resistance as disclosed by the web article at Erik’s o-ring.info. Regarding claim 3 , Park teaches that the urethane prepolymer undergoes a dynamic vulcanization in the presence of the thermoplastic matrix and curing agent, ¶[0009]. The prepolymer is comprised of polyisocyanates and polyols and may be hydroxyl or isocyanate functional ¶¶[0016, 0021], and the PEBA elastomer will have at least one hydroxyl end group due to the polyether ¶[0048]. Isocyanates are known to be reactive with OH groups. Although Park does not explicitly state there is a covalent bond formed between the urethane prepolymer and the PEBA, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that at least a portion of the PEBA copolymer is covalently bonded to the thermoplastic urethane through the isocyanate forming a urethane bond during the dynamic vulcanization because the prepolymer, PEBA, and curing agent are mixed, heated, and reacted together in a mixer and the urethane prepolymer would be reactive to the hydroxyl groups of both the curing agent and the PEBA. Regarding claim 10 , Park teaches the urethane prepolymer is formed from diphenylmethane diisocyanate (MDI), or hexamethylene diisocyanate HDI), ¶[0037], and the prepolymer can also be formed from polyether polyols, polyester polyols, or polycarbonate polyols, ¶[0029], which read on the claimed flexible and rigid blocks. Regarding claim 11 , Park teaches polyamides of nylon 11, nylon 12, nylon 610 and nylon 6 ¶[0053], which reads on the claimed polyamides. Regarding claims 12 and 13 , Park teaches a process of making a thermoplastic composition comprising mixing the urethane prepolymer, curing agent, and thermoplastic elastomer under high shear at a temperature above the melt temperature of the thermoplastic elastomer, ¶[0066], meaning they are in the melt state, which reads on claim 12 and the first two steps of claim 13. Park teaches a thermoplastic urethane can be formed by the dynamic vulcanization in the presence of the thermoplastic elastomer, ¶¶[0021, 0026] and claim 16. The thermoplastic matrix can be polyamide/polyether copolymer (PEBA), ¶[0047]. The prepolymer is a reaction product of one or more polymeric polyol and one or more polyisocyanates, ¶[0020], which reads on the TPU precursor of claim 13. Park exemplifies an amount of PEBAX MX1205 in examples 4 and 5 in the table shown ¶[0087], that is equal to 40 wt.% and 46 wt.%, which falls within the claimed range. The urethane prepolymer Noxtite MS-640S is blended at 40 wt.% and 37 wt.% respectively, which falls within the claimed range. Park teaches compositions for seals, gaskets, and O-rings ¶[0019] and teaches the tensile strength of the formulations measured at 100°C, table in ¶[0087], but is silent as to tensile modulus of the compositions. The web article “Basic Properties of Elastomers” published by Eriks O-ring.info shows typical properties of elastomeric O-rings and seals comprised of various elastomers. The tensile modulus measured at 100% is the second row on page 2, all of which have moduli less than the claimed 150 MPa. These elastomeric materials also exhibit good heat ageing and environmental resistance, as shown in the rest of the chart. When the prior art is silent to certain physical properties of the products, the skilled person will look to industry articles for what the appropriate properties should be for those products, such as the tensile modulus for seals and gaskets. Park and the web article are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of thermoplastic elastomers and the properties and uses thereof. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have practiced the invention of Park and obtained a tensile modulus of less than 150 MPa with the motivation of producing a thermoplastic elastomer seal or gasket with good heat and environmental resistance as taught by Park, because a tensile modulus of less than 150 MPa is the typical tensile modulus for elastomer gaskets and seals that have good heat and environmental resistance as disclosed by the web article at Erik’s o-ring.info. Regarding claims 14-15, Park teaches articles of seals, gaskets, and O-rings ¶[0019], formed by the compositions by injection molding, ¶[0014, 0042, 0066] . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 4-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not teach, suggest, or disclose the hydroxyl group concentrations in either the PEBA or TPU elastomers, or in the overall composition. The cited prior art discloses hydroxyl functionality in the polymers, but there is no suggestion that the compositions or the individual polymers would have the claimed ranges, and it cannot be calculated from the information on the datasheets of the commercial polymers . Double Patenting 08-29 Claims 1-2, 7, 10-18 of this application is patentably indistinct from claims 1-2, 5-7, 10-15 of Application No. 18/556,037. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822. 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. 08-35 Claim s 1-2, 7, 10-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-2, 5-7, 10-15 of copending Application No. 18/556,037 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the composition of ‘037 produces the composition of ‘991 and there is overlapping weight percentages. Reference claim 1 recites a composition comprising: at least one thermoplastic polyurethane, and at least one copolymer containing polyamide blocks and polyether blocks comprising amine chain ends, said composition having a tensile modulus at 23° C. of less than or equal to 170 MPa. This reads on instant claim 1 because the reference TPU and PEBA can be in any amount, which encompasses the amounts of instant claim 1. Reference claim 1 recites amine chain ends, which instant claim 1 does not have, but the PEBA of the instant application does not require a specific chain end, therefore the PEBA with amine chain ends reads on the instant PEBA with any chain end group. Additionally, the tensile modulus of less than or equal to 170 MPa overlaps with the tensile modulus of instant claims 1 and 16. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be prima facie obvious. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). Reference claim 2 reads on instant claims 2, 19, and 20, because the reference claim has any amount of PEBA and TPU, which overlaps with the claimed range of instant claim 2, and the tensile modulus of reference claim 2 overlaps with the tensile modulus of instant claim 2. Reference claim 2 recites amine chain ends, which instant claim 2 does not have, but the PEBA of the instant application does not require a specific chain end, therefore the PEBA with amine chain ends reads on the instant PEBA with any chain end group. Reference claim 5 reads on instant claim 7 and overlaps with instant claim 17. Reference claim 6, which is a variant of reference claim 1, limits the weight percents of the TPU and PEBA to 15-70% and 30-85% respectively and both encompass the claimed ranges of the instant claims. Reference claim 7 overlaps with the density of instant claims 6 and 18. Reference claim 10 reads on instant claim 10. Reference claim 11 reads on instant claim 11. Reference claims 12-13 reads on instant claims 12-13 where the reference tensile modulus overlaps with the instant tensile modulus and the reference claims PEBA with amine chain ends which reads on the instant PEBA with any chain end group. Reference claims 14-15 read on the instant claims 14-15 . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIRGINIA L STONEHOCKER whose telephone number is (571)272-3431. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00AM-4:00PM 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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-272-1302. 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. /V.L.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1766 /RANDY P GULAKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1766 Application/Control Number: 18/555,991 Page 2 Art Unit: 1766 Application/Control Number: 18/555,991 Page 3 Art Unit: 1766 Application/Control Number: 18/555,991 Page 4 Art Unit: 1766 Application/Control Number: 18/555,991 Page 5 Art Unit: 1766 Application/Control Number: 18/555,991 Page 6 Art Unit: 1766 Application/Control Number: 18/555,991 Page 7 Art Unit: 1766 Application/Control Number: 18/555,991 Page 8 Art Unit: 1766 Application/Control Number: 18/555,991 Page 9 Art Unit: 1766 Application/Control Number: 18/555,991 Page 10 Art Unit: 1766 Application/Control Number: 18/555,991 Page 11 Art Unit: 1766 Application/Control Number: 18/555,991 Page 12 Art Unit: 1766 Application/Control Number: 18/555,991 Page 13 Art Unit: 1766 Application/Control Number: 18/555,991 Page 14 Art Unit: 1766 Application/Control Number: 18/555,991 Page 15 Art Unit: 1766 Application/Control Number: 18/555,991 Page 16 Art Unit: 1766 Application/Control Number: 18/555,991 Page 17 Art Unit: 1766 Application/Control Number: 18/555,991 Page 18 Art Unit: 1766
Prosecution Insights