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 .
Claims 1-19, 27 are pending
Claims 1, 3-19, 27 are under examination on the merits.
Claims 4, 5, 9-15, 18 are amended.
Claims 20-26 are newly canceled.
Claim 27 is newly added.
Election/Restrictions
For reference, applicant’s election of Group I claims 1-19 and the three following species: species amino group, no further reaction in step 1(a) and 1(b)(i) in the replies filed on 7/16/25 and 11/24/25 are in effect. The species election is the reason for the withdrawal of claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection in the previous action of claims 5, 9, 10-12, 15, 18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment to the claims.
The rejection in the previous action of claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment to render the claims independent.
Claim Objections
The objections to the claims 4 and 8 set forth in the previous action are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 rejection in the previous action of claims 1, 3-5, 16-19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20140263011 by Thiyagarajan et al is repeated and maintained herein. Specifically,
Thiyagaragan describes novel chromatographic media.
Regarding claim 1, Thiyagaragan describes a method for making an ion-exchange chromatographic packing material wherein the packing material comprises a condensation polymer covalently bonded (paragraph 23) to substrate particles (paragraph 7 “spherical polymers”, paragraph 8). Thiyagaragan describes:
(a) forming a linear polymer product comprising pendant amino groups by reacting a monomer comprising at least one unsaturated carbon-carbon bond and at least one amino group (instantly elected) (Thiyagaragan’s 15 g allylamine paragraph 38; polymerizes via AIBN initiator)
(b)(i) (instantly elected) reacting the pendent amino groups with a polyfunctional compound (Thiyagaragan’s maleic anhydride paragraph 39) which contains at least two functional groups reactive with pendent amino groups (e.g. carbonyl carbons)
Regarding the term “condensation polymer”, there is no active step requiring “condensation polymerization”; Thiyagaragan can be considered as meeting the “condensation” aspect by describing the reaction between the initial allylamine and epoxy (paragraph 37). Notably the polymerization of allylamine, an instantly preferred monomer (claim 4) is a free radical polymerization. Regarding the term “linear polymer”, although Thiyagaragan is silent as to the linearity of his polyallylamine, the instant describes the same initiator (paragraph 34) for the same monomer (paragraph 26) and the term “linear” is not given structural definition in the specification; thus Thiyagaragan meets the term.
The product of Thiyagaragan’s polymerization has functional moieties, e.g. carboxyl from the maleic anhydride and amino groups from the allyl amine.
Regarding claim 3, polymerization of allyl amine yields primary amines.
Regarding claim 4, Thiyagaragan describes allylamine (paragraph 38).
Regarding claim 5, under broadest reasonable interpretation the list of polymers is not required, and Thiyagaragan meets the claim by describing polymethacrylate (paragraph 37).
Regarding claim 16, Thiyagaragan describes polymerizing in the presence of substrate particles (paragraph 37, 38).
Regarding claim 17, Thiyagaragan describes an alternative in which the polymerized allylamine (equivalent to instant (a)) is attached to the particle (paragraph 46, 47).
Regarding claim 18, Thiayagaragan describes the beads with grafted, functionalized polymer as a packing material (paragraph 41).
Regarding claim 19, Thiayagaragan describes anion-exchange chromatographic packing material (paragraph 41, 3) wherein the maleated groups and the pendant primary amine groups read on “anionic”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 rejection in the previous action of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140263011 by Thiyagarajan et al is repeated and maintained herein. Specifically,
Thiyagarajan is described above.
Regarding claim 6, Thiyagarajan describes polyfunctional functionalization reagents including alkyl halides like butyryl chloride (paragraph 26) in an embodiment. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to choose butyryl chloride because Thiyagarajan describes it as an alternative to maleic anhydride, exemplified.
The rejection in the previous action of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140263011 by Thiyagarajan et al in view of US 20120231195 by Pohl et al is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment rendering the rejection of claim 5 over merely US 20140263011 by Thiyagarajan et al, set forth above, applicable.
The rejection in the previous action of claim(s) 7-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140263011 by Thiyagarajan et al in view of US 20120231195 by Pohl et al is repeated and maintained herein, with amendments to reflect applicant’s amendments. New claim 27 is rejected under the same premise.
Regarding claim 7, Thiyagarajan describes some possible functionalizing molecules (paragraph 26) but not epoxides.
Pohl, like Thiyagarajan, describes creation of chromatographic media via covalent functionalization.
Pohl describes reacting a polymer layer on the substrate with a polyfunctional epoxide (paragraph 119). Pohl states that this creates a polymer layer decorated with pendant unreacted epoxide groups, which may be further reacted to create tertiary amine functionality (paragraph 119). Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to react the pendent amine groups of Thiyagarajan with the epoxy according to Pohl in order to be able to eventually create tertiary amine functionality, and move towards Pohl’s goal of high capacity ion exchange phases (Pohl paragraph 15-17).
Regarding claim 8, Pohl describes, after reaction with polyfunctional epoxide, the polymer is reacted with a second amine compound to create tertiary amine groups (paragraph 119). This aides in achieving Pohl’s goal of high-capacity ion exchange phases (Pohl paragraph 15-17). Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill further react the polymerized layer in order to aid in achieving Pohl’s goal of high-capacity ion exchange phases.
Regarding claim 9, Pohl describes having anionic functional moieties on the surface (paragraph 149), i.e. caping with an amine-containing cation functional compounds (paragraph 119, 120). In this instance, the repetition of reaction with polyfunctional epoxide and polyfunctional amine (paragraph 120) reads on the new “thereafter” phrasing in claim 9. These steps aide in achieving Pohl’s goal of high-capacity ion exchange phases (Pohl paragraph 15-17), motivation to one of ordinary skill to adopt these steps.
Regarding claim 10, Pohl describes crosslinking the polymerized layer (paragraph 104, 137). This aides in achieving Pohl’s goal of high-capacity ion exchange phases (Pohl paragraph 15-17). Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to crosslink the polymerized layer in order to aid in achieving Pohl’s goal of high-capacity ion exchange phases.
Regarding claim 11, Pohl describes branching (paragraph 137). This aides in achieving Pohl’s goal of high-capacity ion exchange phases (Pohl paragraph 15-17). Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to use the branching functionalities of Pohl in order to aide in achieving Pohl’s goal of high-capacity ion exchange phases.
Regarding claim 12, Pohl describes the equivalent to step (c), reacting with a second amine to create tertiary amine groups (paragraph 119) and states that this can happen in a flow-through chamber (paragraph 142). Pohl states that this is a convenient way of evaluating different formulations (paragraph 144). Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to conduct the step (c)- or (b)- via flow through chamber because it is a convenient way of evaluating different formulations.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, see rejection of claim 1 above for all but the “flow-through monolithic medium” in claim 13 and “wall of a flow-through hollow tube” in claim 14.
Thiyagarajan merely describes substrate particles and more broadly “solid porous media support” (paragraph 7), but Pohl describes, more specifically, in alternative to particles, flow-through monolithic media or flow-through hollow tubes as substrates (paragraph 146). The substrate aides in achieving Pohl’s goal of high-capacity ion exchange stationary phases (paragraph 15-17). Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to choose any of the solid porous media supports described by Pohl where Thiyagarajan is less specific in order to achieve high-capacity ion exchange stationary phases for chromatography.
Regarding claim 15, Pohl describes repeating the polyfunctional compound with amine reaction several times (paragraph 68). This aides in achieving Pohl’s goal of high-capacity ion exchange stationary phases (paragraph 15-17). Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to repeat the polyfunctional-compound reaction in order to achieve a high-capacity ion exchange stationary phases.
Regarding claim 27, Thiyagarajan describes some possible substrate identities including polydivinylbenzenes (paragraph 7) but is not more specific for the preferred identities listed.
Pohl, like Thiyagarajan, describes creation of chromatographic media via covalent functionalization. Pohl describes ethylvinylbenzene-divinylbenzene particles (paragraph 162). Pohl states that this styrenic substrate can act as an attachment for incoming monomers (paragraph 148). Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to use Pohl’s ethylvinylbenzene-divinylbenzene where Thiyagarajan more broadly describes polydivinylbenzenes because it can act as an attachment for incoming monomers.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument item I p.9 of Remarks submitted 3/2/26 has been considered but is not persuasive. Applicant that the specification describes a linear polymer formation which is subsequently used in a second reaction. In the second reaction, multifunctional reagents react with pendant amino groups on the linear polymer. Applicant states that Thiaygarajan does not describe (i) a linear polymer followed by (ii) formation of a condensation polymer reaction product.
This is not found convincing because although the claims are read in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Thiyagarajan meets the instant claims because Thiyagarajan meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims. Applicant does not have any specific condensation reaction in the claimed method, despite mentioning "a condensation polymer" in the preamble. “Condensation polymer reaction product” is not defined in the specification. The polymerization described in the claims involves “at least one unsaturated carbon-carbon bond” which is not a condensation reactant. The specification describes allylamine as a reactant for the claim step (a), (submitted specification paragraph 26), which is a monomer used by Thiyagarajan and cited in rejection for step (a). Step (b) similarly does not require a condensation reaction. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, Thiyagarajan meets the preamble "condensation polymer" and “condensation polymer reaction product” by describing reaction of polyallylamine with epoxy on the substrate (Thiyagarajan paragraph 7)- this is a condensation reaction.
Applicant’s argument p.10 item II has been considered but is not persuasive. Applicant states that Thiyagarajan fails to describe formation of discrete linear polymer product. This is not found convincing because Thiyagarajan specifically states that "polyallylamine derivatives are used for modification of porous media" and thereafter further functionalized (paragraph 21, 22). The polyallylamine is reasonably expected to meet the instant "linear polymer product" as described above in rejection.
Applicant’s argument p.10 item III has been considered but is not persuasive. Applicant states that Thiyagarajan fails to disclose a first unreacted excess of functional moieties. This is not found convincing because Thiyagarajan discloses "remaining amino groups" (paragraph 31), for example; this was addressed in the previous action in paragraph numbered 23.
Applicant’s argument p.11 item v. has been considered but is not persuasive. Motivation for rejection of claim 6 was previously stated and is repeated above and here: Thiyagarajan, the only reference applied, describes a claimed member as an alternative to his exemplified embodiment.
Applicant’s argument p.11 item I. has been considered but is not persuasive. Applicant states that neither Thiyagarajan or Pohl discloses the specific sequential architecture of the claims. This is not found convincing because first, the claims do not precisely recite the steps described in this argument, see response to first argument above. Second, Pohl does describe reacting pendant amines with polyfunctional epoxies, and again with polyfunctional amines, where Thiyagarajan describes the basement layer. See rejection of claims 8-9 above, for example.
Applicant’s argument p.11 item II. has been considered but is not persuasive. Applicant states that there is no motivation to combine Pohl with Thiaygarajan. This is not found convincing because motivation was set forth in rejection and is repeated above: first, Pohl, like Thiyagarajan, describes creation of chromatographic media via covalent functionalization. Second, Pohl’s reaction of a polymer layer on the substrate with a polyfunctional epoxide (paragraph 119) leads to Pohl’s goal of high capacity ion exchange phases (Pohl paragraph 15-17), which is motivation to one of ordinary skill to adopt the polyfunctional reaction step in Thiagarajan’s chromatographic media.
Applicant’s argument p.12 item III has been considered but is not persuasive. Applicant states that adopting the claimed architecture would change the structural and mechanical basis of Thiyagarajan’s polymer system. This is not found convincing because first, Thiyagarajan meets the claim language, which does not detail a condensation step. Second, with regards to the 103 combination rejections, the idea that the combination destroys Thiyagarajan’s invention is incorrect; both Thiyagarajan and Pohl create chromatographic media via polymers on substrates; Pohl has found that altering the pendant groups via reactions with excess polyfunctional monomers is useful towards high capacity ion exchange and thus is motivational to combine with Thiyagarajan. Combining the two references does not destroy Thiyagarajan’s invention but improves upon it.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHRISTINA W ROSEBACH whose telephone number is (571)270-7154. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-3:30pm.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 5712721302. 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.
/CHRISTINA H.W. ROSEBACH/Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights