DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior office action.
All outstanding objections and rejections made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
The new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant’s amendment filed on 10/6/25. In particular, claim 1 has been amended to further limit the monomers and the weight ratio of the monomers. Further, requiring that the hydrophobic polymer chains are copolymers formed from a first set and a second set.
The newly introduced limitations and/or the new claims were not present at the time of the preceding action. For this reason, the present action is properly made final.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 11-14 and 16 is/are rejected under 102(a)(1) as anticipated by, or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 being unpatentable over WO 2010/125170 (herein Modahl).
As to claims 1-2, 5-6, 12 and 16, Modahl discloses monodisperse particles on the basis of polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP, hydrophilic polymeric chains) with a polystyrene (hydrophobic polymer chain), which are covalently attached to the polymeric stabilizing agents, since the styrene is polymerized in the presence of the PVP (as is the case in the examples of the instant invention). The particle size is exemplified as 540 nm with a coefficient of variation (CV) of less than 5%. See example 4 in paragraph 201-206 and 222. Also see paragraph 22 of the broader disclosure teaching that the CV is below 5%. See paragraph 18 of the broader disclosure teaching that the particle size is less than 1 micron (1000 nm).
As to the new limitation regarding the first and second monomers, note that styrene (first set) and glycidyl methacrylate (epoxy comprising monomer) as a functional group monomer (e.g. paragraphs 135, 137, 57, 106, 110 and examples). Specific attention is directed towards example 16 in paragraph 247, wherein styrene, glycidyl methacrylate, ethylbenzene and divinylbenzene (DVB) is utilized in amounts of 30.6, 37.0, 45 g and 65 g. Thus, the styrene (reading on first set) and ethylbenzene (reading on first set) are present in 75.6 g and the glycidyl methacrylate (reading on second set) is present in 37 g. Thus, falling within the claimed range at about 2:1 ratio. As to the ratio of first set to crosslinking agent, this is 75.6 g (styrene and ethylvinylbenzene) and 65 g. This correlates to a ratio of 95.6:65 or 1.2.1, which is within the claimed range. Example 16 utilizes the stabilizing component polyoxyethylene C12-C15- alcohol emulsifier (Synperonic). Note that the DVB crosslinks the polymer.
Since the monomers are polymerized in the presence of the hydrophilic stabilizing dispersant (Synperonic), it is reasonable to take the position that he stabilizing component is covalently bound to the hydrophobic polymer chains.
In the alternative, example 4 utilizes PVP, which applicant shows becomes covalently attached during the polymerization. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to have substituted the stabilizing component of Synperonic with PVP because both are taught as suitable dispersants in Modahl taught as interchangable and thereby arrive at the claimed range.
As to claim 11, the amount of DVB and styrene is about 118.7 g divinylbenzene, 30 g styrene and 22.4 g seed particles (styrene), for a total of 171.1 g hydrophobic polymeric chains. See example 4. The PVP (hydrophilic) is utilized 44.5 g. Thus the ratio is about 1:3.8, which is within the claimed range.
As to claims 13-14, the DVB crosslinks (reading on ci), glycidyl methacrylate reads on bi the styrene (reading on a). See example 4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2010/125170 (herein Modahl).
The discussion with respect to Modahl set-forth above is incorporated herein be reference.
As to claim 4, paragraph 104 states that the CV is less than 2%, which overlaps the claimed range of less than 1%. It is well settled that where the prior art describes the components of a claimed compound or compositions in concentrations within or overlapping the claimed concentrations a prima facie case of obviousness is established. See In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1343, 74 USPQ2d 1951, 1953 (Fed. Cir 2005); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329, 65 USPQ 2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (CCPA 1990); In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974). Also see MPEP 2144.05 stating that when there is overlap with the claimed ranges and the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to select any amount within the disclosed ranges, including amounts within the scope of the instant claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claimed combination of monomer units are not taught in Modahl. In response, the examiner disagrees. Example 16 teaches in paragraph 247, which shows styrene (first set), glycidyl methacrylate (crosslinking agent), ethylbenzene (first set) and divinylbenzene (second set) is utilized in amounts of 30.6, 37.0, 45 g and 65 g respectively. Thus, the styrene (reading on first set) and ethylbenzene (reading on first set) are present in 75.6 g and the glycidyl methacrylate (reading on second set) is present in 37 g. Thus, falling within the claimed range at about 2:1 ratio. As to the ratio of first set to crosslinking agent, this is 75.6 g (styrene and ethylvinylbenzene) and 65 g. This correlates to a ratio of 95.6:65 or 1.2.1, which is within the claimed range.
Conclusion
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 MARK S KAUCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-7340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-6 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, Arrie Lanee Reuther can be reached at (571) 270-7026. 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.
/MARK S KAUCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764