DETAILED ACTION
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
The new grounds of rejection set forth below for claims 1, 5-7, and 21-23 are necessitated by Applicant’s amendment filed on Mar. 2, 2026. In particular, claim 1 has been amended to contain a range of amounts of monomer B. Therefore, claim 1 and claims 5-7 and 21 which ultimately depend on amended claim 1 are now different in scope from what they were at the time of the preceding Office action. Claims 22-23 are newly presented. For these reasons, 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 U.S.C. § 102
Claims 1, 6, 8, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0060859 A1 (herein “Garcia Castro”).
As to claims 1, 6, 8, and 21-23: Garcia Castro describes a process (see Polymer 3 in the table on p. 17) comprising polymerizing 6.7 mL of N-vinylpyrrolidone (VP) and 7 g of 2-(1-imidazolyl)ethyl methacrylate (ImEMA), corresponding to a molar ratio of about 62:38. The polymerization occurs in the presence of the thermal radical initiator 2,2'-azobis(2-amidinopropane)dihydrochloride (V50) with heating (see the table).
Claims 1, 5-8, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Research Disclosure, 1984, 243, 327-330 (herein “Wagner”).
As to claims 1, 5-6, 8, and 21-22: Wagner describes a process (see Preparation 2 bridging pp. 327-328) comprising polymerizing 20 g of methyl methacrylate and 40 g of N-(methacryloyloxyethyl)imidazole, corresponding to a molar ratio of about 47:53. The polymerization occurs in the presence of the thermal radical initiator AIBN with heating.
As to claim 7: The cited process is carried out in the organic solvent ethanol.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of a previous claim.
Claim 22 is dependent upon independent claim 1. Independent claim 1 recites monomers A and B; it recites that no further monomers are used except for monomers A and B; and it recites a range of amounts of monomer B of 20 to 60 mol%. This range and the requirement that no further monomers are used entails that the amount of monomer A must be 40 to 80 mol%.
Claim 22 recites a range of amounts of monomer A of 35 to 70 mol%. The lower limit of this range (35 mol% of monomer A) is below the lowest amount that is permitted by base claim 1 (40 mol%).
Claim 22 therefore recites amounts of monomer A that is not a further limitation of the subject matter claimed in base claim 1, in contradiction of the first sentence of 35 U.S.C. § 112(d).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but they would be allowable if written in independent form.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed Mar. 2, 2026 (herein “Remarks”) have been fully considered and they are persuasive in part.
Applicant argues that the amended claims avoid the previously applied reference to Yamada.
In light of the amendment of independent claim 1, new rejections over Garcia Castro and Wagner have been set forth above.
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 extension fee 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.
This action is a final rejection and is intended to close the prosecution of this application. Applicant's reply under 37 CFR § 1.113 to this action is limited either to an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board or to an amendment complying with the requirements set forth below.
If applicant should desire to appeal any rejection made by the examiner, a Notice of Appeal must be filed within the period for reply identifying the rejected claim or claims appealed. The Notice of Appeal must be accompanied by the required appeal fee.
If applicant should desire to file an amendment, entry of a proposed amendment after final rejection cannot be made as a matter of right unless it merely cancels claims or complies with a formal requirement made earlier. Amendments touching the merits of the application which otherwise might not be proper may be admitted upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why they are necessary and why they were not presented earlier.
A reply under 37 CFR § 1.113 to a final rejection must include the appeal from, or cancellation of, each rejected claim. The filing of an amendment after final rejection, whether or not it is entered, does not stop the running of the statutory period for reply to the final rejection unless the examiner holds the claims to be in condition for allowance. Accordingly, if a Notice of Appeal has not been filed properly within the period for reply, or any extension of this period obtained under either 37 CFR 1.136(a) or (b), the application will become abandoned.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD A. HUHN whose telephone number is (571)270-7345. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9 AM to 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.
/RICHARD A. HUHN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764