CTFR 17/621,173 CTFR 85052 DETAILED ACTION This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 3/24/2026. The objections and rejections not addressed below are deemed withdrawn. 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action. 07-03-fti AIA The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-34-01 Claims 1, 3-6, and 9-11 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. Regarding claim 1: Claim 1 has been amended to recite the following structure. PNG media_image1.png 371 155 media_image1.png Greyscale The newly added structure is blurred, such that the superscripts and subscripts on the various groups are not clear. As such, it is not clear which of the various R groups is R 1 , etc., rendering the structure indefinite. See also the variable X, which has a mark near it that is unclear as to whether it is intended to be a charge indicator or some other variable. Additionally, as depicted in the formula above there is a gap between the aromatic ring and the rest of the structure. Given the blurred nature of the image, it is therefore unclear whether the formula depicts a structure wherein the aromatic ring is attached to the nitrogen atom through a -CH 2 - group, or if a styrene monomer is present separate from the rest of the structure and the nitrogen is bonded to an ethyl group. Claims 3-6 and 9-11 depend from claim 1 and do not correct these deficiencies. Regarding claim 3: Claim 3 has been amended to recite the structure shown below. PNG media_image2.png 320 190 media_image2.png Greyscale Similar to claim 1, the structure is blurred and unclear; it is therefore unclear which R group is R 1 , etc. The claim is therefore indefinite. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation Regarding claim 1: As noted above, there is a gap between the aromatic ring and the rest of the structure in the formula for segment (a), rendering the claimed structure unclear. Note that 1) the specification repeatedly depicts the aromatic ring as connected to the nitrogen atom through a -CH2- group (specification pages 2, 3, 5) and 2) teaches that it can be made by quaternizing an amine group via reaction with chloromethylstyrene (page 9: lines 19-21), which would result in covalent attachment of the aromatic structure to the nitrogen. The structure of segment (a) has therefore been interpreted to require that the aromatic ring is attached to the nitrogen through a -CH 2 - group for the purposes of searching the prior art. Specification 07-29 AIA The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: As discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 3, it is unclear whether the disclosed structures for segments a and c (see specification page 2, 3, 5, 6, 10-13) are intended to have an oxygen atom between the carbonyl group and R2. Applicant is therefore requested to either clarify for the record that the recited structures are intended to exclude (meth)acrylates as depicted, or amend the structures if they are intended to recite (meth)acrylates . Appropriate correction is required. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed 3/24/2026, with respect to the rejection over Kiama et al, JPH0219803, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn in view of the amendment to claim 1. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive with respect to the previous rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C.112(b). However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as outlined earlier in this Action in view of the amendments to the claims. Regarding the objection to the specification: Applicant’ arguments misinterpret the objection to the specification outlined in paragraph 19 of the previous Office Action. The instant specification includes multiple depictions of the following structures. PNG media_image3.png 276 164 media_image3.png Greyscale PNG media_image4.png 199 169 media_image4.png Greyscale Note that these are the same structures that were previously recited in original claims 1 and 3. The objection outlined in paragraph 19 of the 9/24/2025 Office Action therefore was not directed towards claims 1 and 3; rather, paragraph 19 of the previous Action objected to the structures included in the specification (see specification pages 2, 3, 5, 6, and 10-13) because, per the same rationale as outlined in the previous Office Action with respect to claims 1 and 3, it was unclear whether the structures recited in the specification were correct or if there had been a typographical error omitting an oxygen atom between the carbonyl group and R 2 . The objection is therefore maintained, as applicant has neither amended the specification or clarified for the record that structures depicted above and on pages 2, 3, 5, 6, and 10-13 of the specification are correct. Allowable Subject Matter 07-43-01 AIA Claim s 1, 3-6, and 9-11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record is Kiama et al, JPH0219803 . Example 1 of Kiama (page 4: lines 20-25) discloses a polymer made via a process comprising the steps of 1) polymerizing dimethylaminoethyl methacrylate (DMAEMA) to obtain the polymer poly(dimethylaminoethyl methacrylate) and 2) reacting said poly(dimethylaminoethyl methacrylate) with chloromethylstyrene. The prior art reaction will result in quaternization of the amine functionality of the DMAEM; the prior art polymer will therefore comprise units corresponding to divalent segment a wherein R1 is methyl, R2 is a C2 alkylene group, R3 and R4 are methyl groups, and X is chlorine. Kiama does not teach the incorporation of a comonomer corresponding to claimed segment b. Furthermore, no reference has been found that would provide an ordinary artisan with motivation to modify the polymer of Kiama by incorporating units corresponding to the structure of claimed divalent segment (b). The claimed invention is therefore allowable. Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 JEFFREY S LENIHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5452. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 5:30-2:00PM. 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 Riviere 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. /JEFFREY S LENIHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765 Application/Control Number: 17/621,173 Page 2 Art Unit: 1765 Application/Control Number: 17/621,173 Page 3 Art Unit: 1765 Application/Control Number: 17/621,173 Page 4 Art Unit: 1765 Application/Control Number: 17/621,173 Page 5 Art Unit: 1765 Application/Control Number: 17/621,173 Page 6 Art Unit: 1765
Prosecution Insights