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 .
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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2, 7 and 10-11 are pending. Claims 7 and 10-11 are withdrawn. Claims 1-2 are under examination.
Withdrawn Rejection
In view of the amendments, the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection over Agrigento is hereby withdrawn.
In view of the amendments, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over Agrigento also is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim has previously amended to remove R2 for a more defined structure. Thus, the term R2 should be removed in light of previous amendments. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2 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.
Claim 1 recites limitations of “the polymer matrix comprises at least one crosslinked polymer having hypercrosslinking bonds, wherein each hypercrosslinking bond consists of a molecule comprising at least two nitrogen atoms within its structure which are part of the hypercrosslinking bond” are unclear to the metes and bounds of the structure of the crosslinked polymer containing two hypercrosslinking bonds to produce a hypercrosslinked particle. Although the claim recites a hypercrosslinked particle and hypercrosslinking bonds, the claim recites a polymer matrix having a general crosslinked polymer which is not as intricate as a hypercrosslinking polymer. As stated above, crosslinked polymer does not have the same structural features as a hypercrosslinked polymer. Thus, there is a structural distinction between crosslinked and hypercrosslinked polymers. It is unclear the structure of a hypercrosslinked particle from the feature of a crosslinked polymer matrix containing two bonds of the claimed formulas would be hypercrosslinked. Because the sinuous lines (~) only represent the structure of crosslinked polymer and the formulas could be part of a crosslinked polymer or hypercrosslinked polymer, it is unclear to how it is a hypercrosslinked particle. Claim 2 is being rejected as being dependent from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (“Tunable synthesis of the polar modified hyper-cross-linked resins and application to the adsorption” Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, vol. 505 (2017), pgs. 383-391, published 06/09/2017) in view of Xu et al. (“Hierarchically structured porous organic polymer microspheres with built-in Fe3O4 supraparticles: construction of dual-level pores for Pt-catalyzed enantioselective hydrogenation”, Polym. Chem., vol. 6, pgs. 2892-2899, published 2015).
Zhang teaches a polar hypercrosslinked resins were synthesized by the suspension polymerization and Freidel-Crafts alkylation reaction (abstract). Zhang further teaches the porosity and polarity of the resins could be accurately tuned by adjusting the feeding amount of the monomers and the different porosity and polarity of these resins endowed them with selective adsorption to benzoic acid and rhodamine B (see bottom of abstract). Zhang further teaches in Scheme 1 the modified hypercrosslinked resins were prepared by two successive reactions and one was the suspension polymerization and the other was the Friedel-crafts alkylation to produce polar modified hypercrosslinked resins (HP1-HP4) were synthesized (see pg. 384, right col., section 2.2). Scheme 1 shows the imidazole is crosslinked to the benzyl group via a hydrocarbon group at various positions of the imidazole (see HP1-HP4) and the hydrocarbon of the imidazole is crosslinked with the backbone of the copolymer, which would read on the limitation of wherein the sinuous lines ~ represent the crosslinked polymer. Note that the delocalization of the double bond in a ring produces at least one positive charge of Zhang’s hypercrosslinked imidazole. In particular, Zhang teaches the crosslinked polymer is a co-polymer obtained by polymerization of at least two different monomeric building blocks of vinylbenzyl chloride (VBC) and divinylbenzene (DVB) and wherein at least one monomeric building block used has functional groups reactive towards amine groups. Zhang teaches the resins were mixed with the adsorbate aqueous solution (see pg. 384, right col., section 2.4) and the adsorbates are benzoic acid and Rhodamine B, which would read on corresponding anion being a carboxylate group.
Zhang does not teach at least one magnetic core.
Xu teaches porous organic polymer (POP) composite microspheres consisting of Fe3O4 core and micro/mesoporous POP as the shell (see abstract). Xu teaches polymerization in the PS shell using a mixture of divinylbenzene (DVB) and vinylbenzene chloride (VBC) and upon a Friedel-Craft-type hypercrosslinking treatment, the POP structure was obtained showing the specific porosity (see abstract). Xu also recognizes porous organic polymers have played strictly useful roles in the energy and environmental fields, such as in gas storage, photocatalysis , optical sensing, supercapacitance and electronic devices (see pg. 2892, left col., para. 1). In particular, Xu teaches the dual-level pores and magnetic recyclability (see abstract). Xu teaches the POP composites could be magnetically separated out of the mixed solution, thus improving the efficiency and convenience of the catalyst recycles (see pg. 2897, left col. para. 1). Xu teaches that the distinctive characteristics of the Fe3O4@POP microspheres, including rapid magnetic responsiveness (see pg. 2897, left col. para. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the polar hypercrosslinked particles of Zhang with the magnetic particles of Xu because Xu teaches synthesizing poly(VBC-co-DVB) polymer on Fe3O4 particles is for recyclability by magnetically separated out of the mixed solution. Thus, it would have been obvious to the person to have synthesized the polar hypercrosslinked particles containing VBC and DVB polymer of Zhang with magnetic particles because the polar hypercrosslinked particles would have a rapid magnetic responsiveness in solution for separation.
The person would have a reasonable expectation of success in coating the poly(VBC-co-DVB) polymer on Fe3O4 particles because it has been well understood by Xu to synthesize hypercrosslinking poly(VBC-co-DVB) polymer onto magnetic particles.
With respect to claim 2, Zhang teaches the resins were mixed with the adsorbate aqueous solution (see pg. 384, right col., section 2.4) and the adsorbates are benzoic acid and Rhodamine B, which contains a carboxylate group.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/02/2025 have been considered but are moot because Applicant’s amendments necessitated a new ground of rejection. Although 112(b) has been modified in view of amendments, the rejection is maintained and addressed below.
Applicant argues on page 7 of the Remarks that claim 1 has been amended to recite a plural hypercrosslinking bonds and the crosslinked polymer has been specified. Thus, the claim has defined and clarified hypercrosslinking bonds.
The arguments are not found persuasive for the following reasons. Although the claim recites a hypercrosslinked particle and hypercrosslinking bonds, the claim recites a general crosslinked polymer matrix which is not as intricate as a hypercrosslinking polymer. As stated above, crosslinked polymer does not have the same structural features as a hypercrosslinked polymer. Thus, there is a structural distinction between crosslinked and hypercrosslinked polymers. It is unclear the structure of a hypercrosslinked particle from the feature of a crosslinked polymer matrix containing two bonds of the claimed formulas would be hypercrosslinked. Because the sinuous lines (~) only represent the structure of crosslinked polymer and the formulas could be part of a crosslinked polymer or hypercrosslinked polymer, it is unclear how the formulas are considered hypercrosslinked bonds.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAM P NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0287. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8-4).
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, Gregory Emch can be reached at (571)272-8149. 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.
/N.P.N/Examiner, Art Unit 1678
/SHAFIQUL HAQ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1678
Prosecution Insights