DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4 Nov 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1-5 and 7-24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection now addresses the newly-amended claims, as set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of claims 10 and 24 under 35 USC § 112(b) has been withdrawn in view of the amended claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 10, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber et al. (Weber, M., & Heckmann, W. (1998), Polymer Bulletin, 40(2), 227-234) in view of Periyasamy et al. (Periyasamy, Thirukumaran, et al., New Journal of Chemistry 40.11 (2016): 9313-9319).
As to Claims 1-2, Weber et al. discloses a polysulfone comprising in polymerized form:
(i) A polymerizable bisphenol A (BPA)-based monomer and
(ii) at least one polymerizable 4,4'-dihalophenyl sulfone as a comonomer (see e.g. the nf-PSU polysulfone, which is polymerized from polymerized BPA and 4,4’-dichlorophenyl sulfone monomers as per pg. 228, paras 1-2, pg. 229, para 2, and Scheme 1 on pg. 229. Note that 4,4’-dichlorophenyl sulfone reads on 4,4’-dihalophenyl sulfone as per pg. 15, lines 19-20 of the Instant Specification).
PNG
media_image1.png
320
647
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Illustration 1, reproduction with annotation of Scheme 1 of Weber et al..
Weber et al.’s polysulfone is not a bio-based polysulfone and does not comprise
(i) at least one polymerizable lignin-based monomer having a structure corresponding to formula (I):
PNG
media_image2.png
133
218
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Illustration 2, reproduction of the lignin-based monomer of Claim 1.
wherein each R' is independently either an H or a methyl group, wherein R2, R3, and R4 are each individually selected from an H or a methoxy group.
Periyasamy et al., also working in the field of polymers, teaches that bisguaiacol F (BGF) is viable green alternative to BPA as a monomer for polymer materials due to the fact that BGF has a similar structure to BPA but is incapable of interfering with hormones (See e.g. abstract and pg. 9313, col. 1, paras 1-2 to col. 2, para 1). Periyasamy et al. further teaches that BGF retains the desirable thermal and mechanical properties of BGA (see e.g. pg. 9313, col. 2, para 1). The BGF monomer taught by Periyasamy et al. has the following formula (see e.g. pg. 9314, Scheme 1):
PNG
media_image3.png
153
481
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
236
649
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Illustration 3, reproduction of the lignin-based BGF monomer of Periyasamy et al. (top) and the bio-based polysulfone that results from replacing Weber et al.’s BPA monomer with the BGF monomer taught by Periyasamy et al. (bottom).
Which reads on the polymerizable lignin-based monomer of claim 1 when R1, R2, and R3 are H and R4 is a methoxy group.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to replace the BPA monomer of Weber et al.’s polysulfone with the lignin-based monomer BGF monomer taught by Periyasamy et al. to yield a bio-based polysulfone that reads on the instantly-claimed polysulfone. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a substitution because Periyasamy et al. teaches that BGF is a green material and does not interfere with hormones
As to Claim 3, Weber et al. in view of Periyasamy et al. discloses the bio-based polysulfone of claim 1, wherein the bio-based polysulfone is represented by the formula:(II)
PNG
media_image5.png
170
382
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Illustration 4, reproduction of the bio-based sulfone of Claim 3 .
(see e.g., Scheme 1 of Weber et al. and Illustrations 1-3 above. Note that replacing the BPA monomer with a BGF monomer as proposed in the rejection of Claim 1 yields a bio-based polysulfone that reads on the claimed polysulfone)
wherein n [degree of polymerization] =2-2000, wherein each R' is independently either an H or a methyl group, and wherein R2, R3, and R4 are each individually selected from an H or a methoxy group (i.e., Weber et al.’s polymer has an average polymer chain molecular weight (Mn) of 5,000 g/mol, see Table 1 of Weber et al.. The degree of polymerization (n) is defined as the average polymer chain molecular weight (Mn) divided by the molecular weight of the unit monomer (Mo). In this case, n = Mn/Mo = 5,000/442 = 11.3, which lies within the claimed range of 2-2,000 and thereby anticipates the instantly-claimed range).
As to Claim 4, Weber et al. in view of Periyasamy et al. discloses the bio-based polysulfone of Claim 1, wherein the polymerizable lignin-based monomer comprises p,p'-bisguaiacol F (see e.g. Illustration 3 above, in which the BGF monomer is in a para-para orientation).
However, Weber et al. in view of Periyasamy et al. does not disclose a mixture of p,p'-bisguaiacol F, m,p'-bisguaiacol F, and o,p'-bisguaiacol F and wherein the resulting bio-based polysulfone is represented by the following structure:
PNG
media_image6.png
264
553
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Illustration 5, reproduction with annotation of the bio-based sulfone of Claim 4..
wherein x+y+z=1, 0<x<1, 0<y<1, and 0<z<1; and wherein x, y, and z represent the molar fractions of the respective chemical units.
However, absent any evidence of the criticality of the orientation of the attachment of the BGF monomer to the sulfone (i.e., whether the monomer is p,p’, m,p’, or o,p’ BGF), one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that the m,p’-BGF and o,p’-BGF isomers would have similar chemical and physical properties to p,p’-BGF (see MPEP §2144.09, Close Structural Similarity Between Chemical Compounds [Homologs, Analogues, Isomers]).
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute some amount of the p,p’-BGF monomers in the polymer taught by the combined teachings of Weber et al. and Periyasamy et al. with m,p’-BGF and o,p’-BGF isomers to arrive at the instantly-claimed polymer and the instantly-claimed mole fractions. Such a substitution would yield no new benefit that would not have been reasonably expected by said artisan given the homologous nature of these three isomers.
As to Claim 5, Weber et al. in view of Periyasamy et al. discloses the bio-based polysulfone of Claim 1, wherein the polymerizable lignin-based monomer comprises p,p'-bisguaiacol F (see e.g. Illustration 3 above, in which the BGF monomer is in a para-para orientation).
However, Weber et al. in view of Periyasamy et al. does not disclose a mixture comprising p,p'-bisguaiacol A, m,p'- bisguaiacol A, and o,p'-bisguaiacol A, and wherein the resulting bio-based polysulfone is represented by the following structure:
PNG
media_image7.png
209
669
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Illustration 6, reproduction with annotation of the bio-based sulfone of Claim 5.
wherein x+y+z=1, 0<x<1, 0<y<1, and 0<z<1; and whereinx, y, and z represent the molar fractions of the respective chemical units.
However, given the close structural similarity between p,p'-bisguaiacol A (p,p'-BGA) and p,p'-bisguaiacol F (p,p'-BGF) as shown below, and absent any evidence that the presence of two additional methyl groups substantially alter the properties of the p,p'-BGF monomer, one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention would have expected p,p'-BGF and p,p'-BGA to be analogous monomers with similar physical and chemical properties (see MPEP §2144.09, Close Structural Similarity Between Chemical Compounds [Homologs, Analogues, Isomers]).
PNG
media_image8.png
258
383
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Illustration 7, comparison of p,p'-bisguaiacol F and p,p'-bisguaiacol A monomers.
Further regarding claim 5, Weber et al. in view of Periyasamy et al. as applied above discloses a bio-based polysulfone comprising p,p'-bisguaiacol A, but does not disclose a mixture comprising p,p'-bisguaiacol A, m,p'- bisguaiacol A, and o,p'-bisguaiacol A.
However, absent any evidence of the criticality of the orientation of the attachment of the BGA monomer to the sulfone (i.e., whether the monomer is p,p’, m,p’, or o,p’ BGA), one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that the m,p’-BGA and o,p’-BGA isomers would have similar chemical and physical properties to p,p’-BGA (see MPEP § 2144.09, Close Structural Similarity Between Chemical Compounds [Homologs, Analogues, Isomers]).
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute some amount of the p,p’-BGA monomers in the polymer taught by the combined teachings of Weber et al. and Periyasamy et al. as applied above with m,p’-BGA and o,p’-BGA isomers to arrive at the instantly-claimed polymer and the instantly-claimed mole fractions. Such a substitution would yield no new benefit that would not have been reasonably expected by said artisan given the homologous nature of these three isomers.
As to Claim 10, Weber et al. in view of Periyasamy et al. teaches the bio-based polysulfone of claim 1, but is silent as to whether the bio- based polysulfone has a zwitterionic functionality, and the zwitterionic functionality is selected from dimethylammonioacetate (carboxybetaine) groups, dimethylammoniopropyl sulfonate (sulfobetaine) groups, or combinations thereof.
However, it has been held that if the prior art teaches a chemical structure that is identical to the claimed chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present in the prior art structure (see MPEP § 2112.01, “Composition, Product, and Apparatus Claims [R-10.2019]”). In the instant case, the polysulfone taught by Weber et al. and Periyasamy et al. as set forth meets all of the structural limitations of the instantly-claimed polysulfone, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore have reasonably expected the polysulfone taught by Weber et al. and Periyasamy et al. to also be zwitterionic and to possesses a zwitterionic functionality is selected from dimethylammonioacetate (carboxybetaine) groups, dimethylammoniopropyl sulfonate (sulfobetaine) groups.
As to Claim 24, Weber et al. in view of Periyasamy et al. discloses the bio-based polysulfone of Claim 1, wherein the bio- based polysulfone has a structure presented in Claim 1 (see e.g., Scheme 1 of Weber et al. and Illustrations 1-3 above. Note that replacing the BPA monomer with a BGF monomer as proposed in the rejection of Claim 1 yields a bio-based polysulfone that reads on the claimed polysulfone)
wherein n [degree of polymerization] =2-2000, wherein each R' is independently either an H or a methyl group, and wherein R2, R3, and R4 are each individually selected from an H or a methoxy group (i.e., Weber et al.’s polymer has an average polymer chain molecular weight (Mn) of 5,000 g/mol, see Table 1 of Weber et al.. The degree of polymerization (n) is defined as the average polymer chain molecular weight (Mn) divided by the molecular weight of the unit monomer (Mo). In this case, n = Mn/Mo = 5,000/442 = 11.3, which lies within the claimed range of 2-2,000 and thereby anticipates the instantly-claimed range).
PNG
media_image9.png
230
581
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Illustration 8: proposed modification of Weber et al. with Periyasamy et al., which reads on claim 3 when R1, R2, and R3 are H and R4 is a methoxy group.
Weber et al. in view of Periyasamy et al. as applied above does not disclose a polysulfone wherein a functionality described as O-R5 directly bonded to a phenyl ring, and wherein R5 is individually selected from an H, a COOH, an SO3H, or an CH2CH2CH2NH2 and subsequent quarternary ammonium and betaine-type zwitterions.
The structure presented in Illustration 8 above differs from the instantly-claimed polysulfone in that the above structure has a methyl group (CH3) at the position where the R5 group of the claimed polysulfone is present. The instant claim limits the R5 group to be selected from an H, COOH, SO3H, CH2CH2CH2NH2 quaternary ammonium, and betaine-type zwitterions, which does not contain CH3.
However, the instant claim recites “wherein R1 is either an H or a methyl group,” which implies that an H group and a CH3 group are functionally equivalent chemical groups with respect to a polysulfone. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the instantly-claimed invention to substitute the CH3 group of the polysulfone taught by the combined teachings of Weber et al. and Periyasamy et al. with an H group, which reads on the instantly-claimed polysulfone, becuase the substitution of an H group for a CH3 group would represent the use of an equivalent chemical functional group that would fail to alter the properties of the prior art structure in a patentably distinct manner.
Claim(s) 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber et al. (Weber, M., & Heckmann, W. (1998), Polymer Bulletin, 40(2), 227-234) in view of Periyasamy et al. (Periyasamy, Thirukumaran, et al., New Journal of Chemistry 40.11 (2016): 9313-9319) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (Lee, Sun Hwa, et al., RSC Advances 7.45 (2017): 28358-28365).
As to Claim 7, Weber et al. in view of Periyasamy et al. teaches the bio-based polysulfone of claim 1.
However, Weber et al. in view of Periyasamy et al. does not teach a bio-based polysulfone that comprises at least one additional comonomer selected from the group consisting of 2,2'-diallylbisphenol A, bisphenol A, bisphenol F, bisphenol S, 2,2'-biphenol, 4,4'-biphenol, multiphenol and hydroquinone.
Lee et al., also working in the field of sulfone polymers, teaches that adding a 2,2’-diallylbisphenol A monomer to a sulfone polymer yields a composite polymer having remarkable dimensional stability and barrier properties (see e.g. the sulfonated poly(arylene sulfone) that is prepared with a 2,2’-diallylbisphenol A monomer. Abstract, pg. 28358, col. 2, paras 1-2, pg. 29359, col. 1, para 1, , and Fig. 2).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bio-based polysulfone of Weber et al. in view of Periyasamy et al. by adding the 2,2’-diallylbisphenol A monomer taught by Lee et al. to the copolymer, because Lee teaches that the addition of this monomer to a sulfone polymer yields a composite polymer having remarkable dimensional stability and barrier properties.
As to Claim 8, Weber et al. in view of Periyasamy et al. and Lee et al. teaches the bio-based polysulfone of claim 7.
As shown below, the polysulfone of the combined teachings of Weber et al., Periyasamy et al. and Lee et al. as set forth in the rejection of claim 7 above would read on the structure presented in claim 8.
PNG
media_image10.png
288
607
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Illustration 8, the bio-based polysulfone that results from the combined teachings of Weber et al., Periyasamy et al. and Lee et al. as set forth in the rejection of claim 7 above.
Additionally, the polysulfone described above, having svome amount of 2,2'-diallylbisphenol A, would satisfy the claimed molar fractions of x+y=1 where 0<x≤1.
As to Claim 9, Weber et al. in view of Periyasamy et al. teaches the bio-based polysulfone of claim 1.
However, Weber et al. in view of Periyasamy et al. does not teach a bio-based polysulfone that is modified with one or more functional groups selected from sulfonates, carboxylates, ammoniums, amines, alcohols, sulfobetaines, carboxybetaines, 2,2'- diallylbisphenol A, and poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG).
Lee et al., also working in the field of sulfone polymers, teaches that adding a 2,2’-diallylbisphenol A monomer to a sulfone polymer yields a composite polymer having remarkable dimensional stability and barrier properties (see e.g. the sulfonated poly(arylene sulfone) that is prepared with a 2,2’-diallylbisphenol A monomer. Abstract, pg. 28358, col. 2, paras 1-2, pg. 29359, col. 1, para 1, , and Fig. 2).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bio-based polysulfone of Weber et al. in view of Periyasamy et al. by adding the 2,2’-diallylbisphenol A monomer taught by Lee et al. to the copolymer, because Lee teaches that the addition of this monomer to a sulfone polymer yields a composite polymer having remarkable dimensional stability and barrier properties.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBERT HILTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4068. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571)-272-3066. 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.
/A.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/TONG GUO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723