DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-29 are pending as presented on 1/9/2026.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-11 and 13-24, drawn to an oligomer) in the reply filed on 1/9/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 12 and 25-29 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Applicant’s further election without traverse of species “e” (an oligomer as in instant Example 5 which has a structure according to formula IIc recited in claim 1) in the reply filed on 1/9/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 2, 4-11, 14, 16, 19, 20 and 22-24 are further withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim:
Claim 2 (Claim 2 requires a methacrylate-functionalized oligomer, while the elected species is a (meth)acrylamide functionalized amide-containing oligomer.);
Claims 4-11 (Independent claim 1 recites an oligomer which either “i” comprises a polyamide block and a non-polyamide block [described in the instant specification as “Type A” oligomers], or, “ii” has a structure according to one of formulas IIa through IIg [described in the instant specification as “Type B” oligomers]. Claims 4-11 are further limited to a Type A oligomer according to “i” which comprises blocks. The elected species is a Type B oligomer which has a structure IIc within group “ii,” and does not comprise non-polyamide blocks.);
Claims 14 and 16 (Claims 14 and 16 further limit the oligomer to a structure IIa or IId, IIb, IIe or IIf, and therefore do not encompass the elected species IIc.);
Claims 19, 20 and 22-24 (The claims further limit the oligomer to structure IIa, IIb, IId, IIe, IIf or IIg, and therefore do not encompass the elected species IIc.)
The elected species, i.e., a type B oligomer as formed in instant example 5, has a structure according to instant formula IIc wherein R4 is -CH2CH2- (derived from succinic acid), R5 is H, R6 is divalent alkylene ether (derived from Jeffamine EDR-148), c is 1, A1 and A2 have structures according to formula XXI wherein r is 0, Rb is derived from -toluene- (derived from toluene diisocyanate), and Rc is methyl (derived from methacrylic acid). This species is free of prior art. The examiner is unaware of prior which discloses or suggests a methacrylate-functionalized amide oligomer having a structure as exemplified in instant Prophetic Example 5. However, none of the claims are limited to the elected species. Examination has been continued for species of Type B oligomers according to instant formula IIc which fall within the scope of the generic claims; none of these generic claims are presently free of prior art.
Information Disclosure Statement
Two publications listed in the information disclosure statement filed 7/18/2023 (NPL Cite No. 1 and 2) fail to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because the dates of the publications are not provided (See 37 CFR 1.98(b)(5)). They have been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 15 and 17 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 15 (see lines 5, 7 and 8) and 17 (see line 3) recite broad definitions for R groups, and the claims also recite a narrower statement of the limitation preceded by “such as.” The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 13, 15, 18 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by D’Alelio (US 3470079).
As to claims 1, 3, 13, 15, 18 and 21, D’Alelio exemplifies diacrylyl telomerized polyethylene succinimide, which has the following structural formula (col 17, Example X):
PNG
media_image1.png
50
434
media_image1.png
Greyscale
D’Alelio characterizes the polyamides as low molecular weight polymers known as oligomers (col 1, lines 20-29).
The diacrylyl polyethylene succinimide disclosed by D’Alelio has a structure according to instant formula IIc. To illustrate, the formula below (created by the examiner) has been expanded to write out one extra succinic residue and one extra ethylenediamine residue outside of the repeating bracket:
CH2=CHCONHCH2CH2NHOCCH2CH2CO[NHCH2CH2NHOCCH2CH2CO]3NHCH2CH2NHOCCH=CH2
Both the formula above copied from D’Alelio and the formula above created by the examiner contain a total of four succinic acid units (italicized) and five ethylenediamine units (bolded) between two terminal acrylyl chloride units. In other words, the polymer represented by the examiner’s expanded formula is exactly the same as the polymer represented by the formula in D’Alelio’s example X.
The below formula annotated by the examiner shows how the units in the polymer disclosed by D’Alelio correspond to the groups within instant formula IIc:
PNG
media_image2.png
150
1220
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As shown in the above annotated formula, D’Alelio discloses an acrylamide-functionalized amide-containing oligomer according to instant formula IIc, as recited in claim 1, wherein instant:
A1 and A2 are each acryloyl (acrylamide)-containing moieties, and which also have a structure according to formula XXI recited in claims 18 and 21 (wherein instant Rb is -CH2CH2-, r is 0 and Rc is H),
c is 3 (i.e., within the presently claimed range of 1 or more),
R5 is H (also meeting instant claim 13), and
R4 and R6 are each -CH2CH2- (divalent straight chain alkylene organic moieties, also meeting instant claim 15).
Note: D’Alelio also exemplifies polymers which are the same as set forth above, but with methacrylamide end groups instead of acrylamide (col 18, lines 5-11), which has a structure according to formula IIc as set forth above wherein Rc in instant formula XXI recited in claim 18 is methyl.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 13, 15, 17, 18 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linemann (US 6680364).
Instant claim 17 depends from claim 1 and further limits the oligomer of formula IIc by requiring R6 (i.e., the structure derived from a diamine monomer) to be a divalent alkylene ether moiety. The following discussion shows that Linemann suggests an oligomer according to instant claim 17 (and which also falls within the scope of broader claims 1, 3, 13, 15, 18 and 21).
Linemann discloses unsaturated water dispersible polyamide (UWDPA) having an Mn of 1000 to 10,000 g/mol (col 1, lines 62-67). Considering the low molecular weight, Linemann’s polyamide is considered an oligomer. Linemann discloses a method of obtaining a UWDPA by reacting dicarboxylic acids (C and D) and diamines (B) in a 1:1 ratio in the presence of an ethylenic acid (a compound (E), see col 2, lines 20-23) to provide a UWDPA having one chain end which carries an unsaturated group from the acid (col 2, lines 24-32), adding a diamine to react with the other chain end of the UWDPA and give amine-containing termination (col 2, lines 34-36), and then reacting with one equivalent of ethylenic acid to amidify the -NH2 of the UWDPA and form a polyamide carrying two double bonds, one at each end of the chain (col 2, lines 37-41).
Linemann discloses suitable unsaturated compounds E which are able to introduce the unsaturated group at the polyamide chain end in col 4, lines 13-20, including acrylic and methacrylic acid. Terminal groups derived from reaction of either acrylic or methacrylic acid reacted with -NH2 groups on polyamide chain ends provides (meth)acrylamide-containing moieties according to instant A1 and A2. See structure III in col 2, lines 40-41. Such terminal groups also have a structure according to formula XXI recited in claims 18 and 21, wherein Rb is a divalent organic moiety (derived from Linemann’s diamine monomer B), r is 0, and Rc is H (when E is acrylic acid) or methyl (when E is methacrylic acid).
Linemann discloses suitable diacid monomers C and D in col 3, lines 40-57. Selection of any diacid(s) named by Linemann provides divalent organic moieties according to instant R4 in formula IIc.
Linemann discloses suitable diamine monomers B in col 3, lines 23-40. Linemann teaches that it is possible to use diamines such as Jeffamine D400 and Jeffamine D2000, and that their polyether chains increase the hydrophilicity of the resin (col 3, lines 31-36). Arriving at the present claims from Linemann’s disclosure requires selection of Jeffamine D400 or D2000 as Linemann’s diamine monomer (both of these diamines contain divalent alkylene ether moieties according to group R6, as recited in instant claims 15 and 17; reaction of either polyether diamine with Linemann’s dicarboxylic acid monomer results in a polyamide chain according to instant formula IIc wherein R5 is H, as recited in claims 1 and 13). When preparing a polyamide having unsaturated groups at each end by reacting dicarboxylic acid and diamine monomers and acrylic or methacrylic acid as a terminator, as taught by Linemann, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected any suitable diamine monomer named by Linemann, including Jeffamine D400 or D2000 in order to provide a resin having increased hydrophilicity, thereby arriving at a (meth)acrylamide functionalized polyamide oligomer according to formula IIc, as presently recited in claims 1, 3, 13, 15, 17, 18 and 21.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL KAHN whose telephone number is (571)270-7346. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8-5.
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 571-272-1302. 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.
/RACHEL KAHN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766