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 .
This office action is in response to the amendment filed 11/20/2025. Claim 1 is amended; claims 12-19 and 22-23 are withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to non-elected invention; claims 20-21 and 24-25 are cancelled. Accordingly, claims 1-19 and 22-23 are currently pending in the application.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goujon et al (“Daisy chain … molecular muscles”; CCS Chemistry; vol. 1, pp 83-96; 2019) in view of Stoddart et al (“Mechanically interlocked molecules … (Nobel Lecture)” Angew Chem. Int. Ed. Vol 56, pp 11094-11125, 2017).
Regarding claim 1, Goujon et al disclose [C2] daisy chain represented in the following scheme as a dimer:
PNG
media_image1.png
447
345
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(figure 2b, page 87) which reads on daisy chain polymer having a degree of polymerization of 2. It is noted that
PNG
media_image2.png
60
51
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(i.e., bipyridinium) and
PNG
media_image3.png
44
27
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(i.e., naphthalene) read on the recognition site as evidenced by Stoddart et al (page 11103, figure 22; and page 11104, col. 1). Evidence that monomer units comprising bipyridinium and naphthalene as recognition units, and CBPQT unit (i.e., blue box in 2b above) act as molecular pump comes from Stoddart et al (page 11103, col. 2).
Goujon et al are silent with respect to molecular pump containing monomers having a coulombic barrier; and daisy chain can be switched between a mechanically bonded polymer and a dynamic supramolecular polymer under redox control.
However, regarding molecular pump containing monomers having a coulombic barrier, Stoddart et al teach that in oxidized state, the CBPQT2(.+) ring and the molecular pump portion of the dumbbell repel each other. Upon reduction the CBPQT2(.+) ring passes quickly over the PY+ unit in search of radical recognition site BIPY2+ to form thermodynamically favored complex. On oxidation, the complex becomes a highly unstable species and the CBPQT4+ ring would like to relax to a more favored location. This pathway is blocked kinetically by the PY+ units which acts as a coulombic barrier to deslipping of the ring (i.e., reads on the coulombic barrier in present claim 1). When a second reduction is performed, the IPP unit prevents the association of the trapped ring with the BIPY2+ recognition site enabling the site to attract a second CBPQT2(.+) ring from solution (i.e., reads on the multiplicity of kinetically trapped molecular pump containing monomers). The first ring to be trapped does not have a significant influence on the threading of second ring, it is possible to extend the two cycle system into a multicycle one (page 11103, col. 2 to page 11104, col. 1). Therefore, in light of the teachings in Stoddart et al, it would have been obvious to one skilled in art prior to the filing of present application to use a coulombic barrier unit such as PY+ in the molecular pump monomer, of Goujoun et al, for obtaining a monomer that can trap multiple units of the CBPQT2(.+) ring to improve the properties of daisy chain polymer of Goujoun et al, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding daisy chain can be switched between a mechanically bonded polymer and a dynamic supramolecular polymer under redox control, given that the daisy chain polymer is obvious based on the disclosure in Goujon et al combined with the teachings in Stoddart et al of oxidation and reduction of CBPQT unit, it is the Office’s position that daisy chain polymer, of Goujon et al in view of Stoddart et al can be switched between a mechanically bonded polymer and a dynamic supramolecular polymer under redox control, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claims 2 and 4,
PNG
media_image1.png
447
345
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(see figure 2 of Goujon et al, page 87) wherein the CBPQT (i.e., redox-active macrocyclic component in present claim 2 and 4) is linked to the naphthalene moiety of the molecular pump through a polyethylene glycol chain (i.e., reads on the collecting chain linking the molecular pump redox-active macrocyclic component in present claim 2, and at least one of the multiplicity of molecular pump containing monomer is kinetically trapped on the collecting chain of another molecular containing monomer in present claim 2).
Regarding claim 3, recognition unit in Goujoun includes bipyridinium (i.e., reads on the viologen subunit in present claim 3) and the coulombic barrier in Stoddart et al include PY+ (i.e. dimethylpyridinium in present claim 3).
Regarding claim 10, see figure 3, of Goujoun et al,
PNG
media_image4.png
360
609
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein an oligomer is formed (page 89). The degree of polymerization of daisy chain oligomer is 11 units (page 90, col. 1)
Regarding claim 11, claim is written in a product-by-process form. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth in paragraph 15, of office action mailed 8/20/2025, are withdrawn in view amendment and/or applicant arguments and/or new grounds of rejection set forth in this Office action, necessitated by amendment.
While the grounds of rejection are changed, it was still deemed appropriate to address some of the arguments which would be pertinent to new grounds of rejection in this office action (See paragraph 11 below).
Applicant's arguments filed 11/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant argues that (A) claimed polymer exhibits redox driven transition that enable controlled trapping and release of macrocyclic components, resulting in a switchable daisy chain polymer. Goujon is silent about redox-responsive transformation that can be switched between a mechanically bonded polymer and a dynamic supramolecular polymer under redox control. Stoddart discloses recognition sites and coulombic forces in the context of molecular pump; and (B) Stoppers were purposefully attached to the ends of chain structure in Goujon. Stoppers prevent dethreading of the structure, and, thus incidentally, to purify and isolate the molecule. In contrast molecular pumps serve as both recognition sites and coulombic barriers rather than steric ones. Under different redox states the molecular pumps enable polymerization as well as depolymerization under redox stimuli. The proposed modification to arrive at daisy chain polymer that can be switched between a mechanically bonded polymer and a dynamic supramolecular polymer under redox control renders the structure of Goujon unsuitable for its intended use.
With respect to (A), Goujon discloses a daisy chain polymer having a degree of polymerization of 2. Graham v, Deere analysis was done and secondary reference of Stoddart et al provided the motivation to include coulombic barrier in the form of Py+ units in daisy chain polymers. Stoddart teaches that CBPQT undergoes oxidation and reduction (i.e., acts a redox active site). Case law holds that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
With respect to (B), stoppers were included in Goujon for purifying and isolating the molecule. It is the Office’s position that it is within the scope of one skilled in art prior to the filing of present application to modify the purified daisy chain polymer, of Goujon, with a coulombic barrier, of Stoddart, for extending two cycle system to a multicycle one.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARUNA P REDDY whose telephone number is (571)272-6566. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM M-F.
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.
/KARUNA P REDDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764