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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/10/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al., Tough triblock copolymer hydrogels with different micromorphologies for medical and sensory materials, ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. 2019, 1, 1948-1953.
Regarding claims 1-2 and 9, Zhang discloses (abstract) amphiphilic ABA triblock copolymer hydrogels with microstructures of sphere, cylinder and laminae, where the triblock copolymer is poly(butyl methacrylate)-b-poly(methacrylic acid)-b-poly-(butyl methacrylate) (PBMA-b-PMAA-b-PBMA). Zhang’s PBMA-b-PMAA-b-PBMA is identical to applicant’s triblock copolymer (instant specification Fig. 2 (a)), and meets all the claimed requirements.
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.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang as applied to claims 1-2 and 9, further in view of Rodriques et al. US20170081489, with evidentiary support references Le Perchec US20200274018 and Benson US 4703999.
Regarding claim 3, Zhang notes the use of triblock hydrogels as photonic materials (Zhang, last para), however Zhang is silent on a colorant and a nanoparticle bonded to the specific segments of the block copolymer hydrogels. Analogous reference Rodriques teaches hydrogels and three-dimensional patterning of hydrogels (Abstract, reference claim 1), which can also be used for creation of photonic devices (Rodriques, paras [0003], [0063], [0078], [0080]).
Reference Rodriques discloses (see Rodriques claims 2 and 28, and para [0079]) the incorporation of a fluorophore (corresponding to a colorant) moiety bonded to methacrylic acid (Fig 1A), and semiconductor nanoparticles such as cadmium telluride. Rodriques notes that semiconductor nanoparticles can be used to change the index of refraction (para [0080]), with the reasonable expectation that the semiconductor nanoparticles increase the refractive index of the composition due to their higher intrinsic refractive index, as evidenced by Le Perchec, who reports the refractive index of cadmium telluride to be 2.7 (para [0014]). Benson notes the refractive index of acrylic polymeric material to be 1.5 (col 5, line 50). Thus, references Le Perche and Benson provide the evidence that the cadmium telluride particles have a higher refractive index than Zhang’s triblock hydrogels polybutylmethacrylate and polymethacrylic acid segments.
Advantageously, Rodriques provides the motivation to incorporate the colorant into the polymer gel since it aids in visualization of patterned gel structures as shown in Fig. 3A and 3B (paras [0010] and [0085]). The cadmium telluride semiconductor nanoparticles allow for the creation of photonic metamaterials (para [0080]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated a colorant and a nanoparticle in Zhang’s PBMA-b-PMAA-b-PBMA triblock hydrogel, as taught by Rodriques for the same application of creating patterned gel structure which can be easily visualized and used as photonic materials.
Claims 4-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang as applied to claims 1-2 and 9 above, and further in view of Rodriques et al. US20170081489.
Regarding claim 4, Zhang notes the use of triblock hydrogels as photonic materials (Zhang, last para), however Zhang is silent on a colorant bonded to the specific segments of the block copolymer hydrogels. Analogous reference Rodriques teaches hydrogels and three-dimensional patterning of hydrogels (Abstract, reference claim 1), which can also be used for creation of photonic devices (Rodriques, paras [0003], [0063], [0078], [0080]).
Rodriques teaches (see Rodriques para [0043], claim 2, and Fig 1A) incorporation of biotin units into the polymer gel which leads to formation of reactive group sites, and which further binds with the amine groups of the fluorophore compound (colorant). A fluorophore therefore can form a bridging structure between two polymer chains where one fluorophore moiety bonds with the methacrylic acid portions (Fig 1A) of the polymer and the other with the biotin reactive site on the polymer chain, meeting the claimed requirement of cross-linking of the copolymer via the colorant. Advantageously, Rodriquez provides the motivation to incorporate the colorant into the polymer gel since it allows for visualization of patterned gel structures as shown in Fig. 3A and 3B (paras [0010] and [0085]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated a colorant which is bonded to methacrylic acid block of Zhang’s PBMA-b-PMAA-b-PBMA triblock hydrogel, as taught by Rodriques for the same application of creating patterned gel structure which can be easily visualized.
Regarding claim 5, as discussed when addressing claim 4, the colorant bonded to the second segment i.e., methacrylic acid block of Zhang’s PBMA-b-PMAA-b-PBMA triblock hydrogel is rendered obvious by the combined teaching of Zhang and Rodriques. Zhang in the supplemental information provides (Table S1, B220) a narrow molecular weight distribution with Mw/Mn =1.25, which meets the claimed requirement.
Regarding claim 6, Zhang in view of Rodriques teaches the use of excessing reactive groups which are fluorophore compounds which bond to the polymer gel (see Rodriques claims 1 and 2). As can be seen Rodriques Fig 1A that the fluorophore can react with the poly(meth)acrylic segment of the block copolymer, which meets the claimed requirement.
Rodriques does not address the exact percentage of polymer gel which are bonded to the fluorophore but notes that excessing reactive groups (bonded to fluorophore compounds, claims 1d and 2) are removed, implying that the remaining fluorophore compounds should be bonded to 100% of the block component. Applicant’s attention is brought to “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 II.A.
Regarding claim 7, Zhang teaches the required multiblock segmented triblock copolymer hydrogel (which contains water) which can be utilized to create patterned micrometer sized features as taught by Rodriques (as discussed when addressing instant claims 3 and 4). Rodriques further discloses (see Rodriques claims 1 and 2) that the fluorophore containing polymer gel are illuminated to yield a three-dimensional pattern, and the excess reactive groups (which are generated by the fluorophore attachment to the polymer gel) can be removed from the polymer gel material (Rodriquez claim 1c. and d.). Rodriques adds that the hydrogel can be shrunk by dehydrating (water removal) (Rodriques: claim 7), after the removal of excessive colorants (fluorophores).
The method for producing a patterned microstructure from Zhang’s triblock copolymer as claimed is rendered obvious by the combined teaching of Zhang and Rodriques, where all the required hydrogel patterning steps are outlined by Rodriques.
Regarding claim 8, Zhang in view of Rodriques, as discussed when addressing claim 4, biotin units can serve as reactive sites on the polymer chain which can participate in further crosslinking of the polymer chains via the fluorophore. Rodiques notes (see Rodriques, claims 1 b, c and d) that excess reactive groups (attached via fluorophore, claim 2) are removed from the polymer gel. It is understood that the illumination results in the crosslinking reaction (see Rodriques Fig 1A), carried out before the removal of the excessive fluorophore based reactive groups.
It is noted that there is a finite list of immediately recognizable options
available to one of ordinary skill in the art, including removal of fluorophore bonded reactive groups a) before illumination (which leads to crosslinking) b) after illumination and c) during illumination.
With the presence of a finite number of options which are immediately recognizable to a person having ordinary skill in the art, and the options do not produce new or unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try any of the immediately recognizable and finite options of removing the fluorophore reactive groups at any particular stage with respect to illumination (which leads to crosslinking), including before crosslinking, with reasonable expectation of success (see MPEP 2143 I. E.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/20/2026 have been fully considered. Please see the response below.
Applicant argues that Yao does not teach the amended claimed limitation "the one or more [hydrophobic] first segments each includes methacrylates having alkyl chains each having two or more carbon atoms.", since it teaches the hydrophobic segments are constituted by MMA, with -CH₃ alkyl chain, which contains exactly one carbon atom, is persuasive and therefore §102 rejection over Yao has been withdrawn.
Applicant remarks for the § 103 rejection of claims 1-2 (and 3) and 4-9 over Rodriques in view of Yao, are focused on the deficiencies of reference Yao. Since Yao has not been utilized for the rejection of the amended claims, applicant arguments against Rodriques in view of Yao, are moot.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made for claims 1-2 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Zhang et al.,Tough triblock copolymer hydrogels with different micromorphologies for medical and sensory materials, ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. 2019, 1, 1948-1953.
The amended claims 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C §103 over Zhang in view of Rodriques et al. US20170081489. References Benson US 4703999 and Le Perchec US20200274018 are utilized as additional evidentiary support references along with Zhang and Rodriques to reject amended claim 3.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Surbhi M Du whose telephone number is (571)272-9960. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am to 5:00pm.
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, Heidi (Riviere) Kelley can be reached at 571-270-1831. 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.
/S.M.D./
Examiner
Art Unit 1765
/JOHN M COONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights