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 .
Election/Restrictions
Upon reconsideration and in light of applicant’s amendment, the restriction requirement has been withdrawn. All claims are fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The chemical reaction on page 27 of the originally filed specification is illegible. Specifically, the reaction and conditions are difficult to read. Note the question marks in PGPub of the instant application, which the Office could not read while printing the application.
PNG
media_image1.png
436
410
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
409
444
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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) 16-19, 22, 24 and 26-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/102128 (herein Salit).
In setting forth the instant rejection, the US equivalent on the WO document, US 2021/0171670, is relied upon as the English translation.
As to claims 16-19, 22 and 24 Salit discloses compounds with the epoxide for formula I
PNG
media_image3.png
85
133
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(see paragraph 17), wherein X1, X2 and X3 are defined identically to the instant claims in paragraph 22. The compound also comprises a C6 arene group of the formula II:
PNG
media_image4.png
203
240
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(see paragraph 25), wherein CNO reads on claimed CN+-O- (nitrile oxide). Thus, reading on claimed units A and T. Also note that the examples show that the nitrile oxide is formed from the oxime (thus A is CH=NOH). Paragraphs 25 and 28 discloses that the epoxide of formula I is connected to the arene through a “carbon-based chain” also comprising an oxygen, wherein the carbon-based chain comprises at least one carbon atom. Thus, reading on the claimed structure, wherein E is C1- or greater alkanediyl.
In other words, the broader disclosure teaches compounds with identical structures as claimed formula I with the proviso that E is broader and taught as at least one carbon, while the claim requires E to be a 5 to 10 carbon chain. Further, the examples of Salit show examples of
PNG
media_image5.png
144
301
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image6.png
162
318
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image7.png
217
268
media_image7.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image8.png
205
233
media_image8.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image9.png
183
267
media_image9.png
Greyscale
, which reads on the claimed formula, which differs wherein E is C1 and C3 alkadiyl instead of the claimed C5 to C10 alkanediyl. But again, the broader disclosure teaches one or more carbons. Thus, there is motivation of increasing the number of methylene (carbon) units from one and/or three to five and thereby arrive at the claimed invention because Salit teaches that E is a “carbon-based chain” that comprises “one or more carbon atoms” that are “hydrocarbon-based”.
In light of the discussion above, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to have modified the compound of Salit via increasing the number of methylene (carbon) units from one and/or three to five and thereby arrive at the claimed invention because Salit teaches such modifications are suitable via teaching that E is a “carbon-based chain” that comprises “one or more carbon atoms” that are “hydrocarbon-based”. See paragraph 28 of Salit.
As to claim 26, Salit teaches modified polymers obtained by grafting the compound onto a diene polymer (polymer having at least one unsaturated carbon-carbon bond). See paragraph 2, 7, 30-32 and examples.
As to claims 27-28, Salit teaches compositions with an additive and the compound and/or grafted compound modified polymer. See paragraph 43 and examples.
As to claim 29, see the examples that teach reactions such as:
PNG
media_image10.png
230
633
media_image10.png
Greyscale
, which utilizes an SL1 solvent (CH2Cl2, methylene chloride, DCM) and an oxidizing agent (NaOCl, sodium hypochlorite), which maps the claimed reaction scheme with E being obvious as discussed above.
As to claim 30, Salit shows examples such as:
PNG
media_image11.png
221
567
media_image11.png
Greyscale
, which shows reaction of an aqueous (H2O) solution of hydroxylamine (NH2OH), mapping the claimed reaction scheme with E being obvious as discussed above.
As to claim 31, Salit shows examples such as:
PNG
media_image12.png
670
221
media_image12.png
Greyscale
, which shows reaction of an aqueous (H2O) solution of hydroxylamine (NH2OH), mapping the claimed reaction scheme with E being obvious as discussed above. The reaction is performed at 60-80 oC, etc.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23 and 25 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.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights