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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group V Claims 30-40 in the reply filed on June 15, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). The election was made with traverse, however, no remarks to the traversal were filed on June 15, 2026 even though the response states traversal to follow on Page 2. Page 2 is simply Applicant’s representative’s signature and status of the claims.
Claims 1-29, 41-42 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 15, 2026.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, provisional application No. 63/059779, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
The subject matter of Claims 30/27, 31-34 and 36 appear to be supported by the provisional application 63/059779 and, therefore, are afforded the effective filing date of the provisional application of July 31, 2020. This includes consideration of the “appendix to the specification”.
The subject matter of Claims 35, 37-40 do not appear supported in the provisional application as the term thermoset is used in the Abstract only but there is no indication the temperature range claimed was in possession of the inventors as of the filing date of the provisional application. Further, the medical devices, implants and specific medical devices (Claims 37-40) are not present in the provisional application and, therefore, the there is no indication the subject matter of these claims was in possession of the inventors as of the filing date of the provisional application.
The subject matter of Claims 35, 37-40 (along with Claims 30/27, 31/34 and 36) are found in PCT/US21/28987. Therefore, the effective filing date of Claims 35, 37-40 is the filing date of April 23, 2021.
Applicant is reminded that priority is a claim-by-claim consideration including any further limiting dependent limitations. For the use of 102b exceptions against rejected prior art, it is immaterial if a exception applies to the parent claim as the dependent claim determines the effective filing date / priority date of claim. In other words, an exception against Claim 30 does not necessarily exclude the same prior art applied to Claim 40 as Claim 40 only has a later filed effective filing date.
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 30-40 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.
Claim 30 depends from Claim 27 and, therefore, the limitations of Claim 27 are included with Claim 30. Claim 27 recites “a polymer network comprising a plurality of triblock copolymers wherein: said bottlebrush polymers configured to operate as an elastic network strands and said linear polymers aggregate to form spherical glassy domains.”
There is no antecedent basis for the recited bottlebrush polymers and linear polymers and the triblock copolymer is not recited to actually comprise bottlebrush polymers and linear polymers. Further, there is no indication how or what the triblock copolymer comprises when considering bottlebrush and linear polymers. Does the triblock copolymer comprise these two polymer types as blocks and an additional block? Does the triblock copolymer have 2 linear polymers and 1 bottlebrush as blocks or the reverse or simply 3 of any bottlebrush / linear. The metes and bounds on the triblock copolymer limitation are entirely unclear.
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 30-31, 33-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nian “Molecular Architecture Directs Linear−Bottlebrush−Linear Triblock Copolymers to Self-Assemble to Soft Reprocessable Elastomers.”
Nain teaches linear-bottlebrush-linear copolymers (triblock copolymers). Bottlebrush PDMS comprising network stranders are taught in Figure 1 (PDMS network strands from the backbone middle block ) bbPDMS. Linear polystyrene (PS) end blocks are also taught in Figure 1. Figure 2 caption teaches the PS domains are dark dots, or spheres, and the light color is bbPDMS. Additionally, the underlined portion below Figure 2’s caption also states the PS domains are spherical. Polystyrene is also a glassy polymer forming these “hard” glassy domains whereas the bbPDMS is the “soft elastic block” acting as network strands. (See underlined portion of bottom of 2nd column of page 1531).
Therefore, the above PS-b-bbPDMS-b-PS anticipates the recited article made out of the triblock of Claim 30. Note that any sample material or any produced material constitutes an article.
With respect to Claim 31, Nian teaches the triblocks are elastomeric and solvent free on page 1532 underlined portion between the two columns. This anticipates Claim 31.
While Nian does not explicitly teach the LBBL of the reference have the material properties of Claims 33-35, as the LBBL anticipates the LBBL of the claims and that of the Figures and exemplified LBBL of the as-filed specification, one of ordinary skill in the art is reasonably suggested, when tested appropriately, Nian’s LBBL copolymers must anticipate the material properties of Claims 33, Claim 34 (1 kPa modulus specifically taught on pg 1532 last paragraph), and Claim 35.
With respect to Claim 36, Nian suggests 3d printing the LBBL polymers by teaching additive manufacturing. (pg 1532 last paragraph) This anticipates Claim 36.
With respect to Claims 37-40, these claims are to future intended use of the article of Claim 30. Any piece of LBBL material is sufficient to anticipate these claims as there is no additional structure imparted on any of these future intended uses. As Nian produces pieces of LBBL material Claim 37, Claim 38, Claim 39 and Claim 40 are anticipated.
Claims 35, 37-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cong, "Understanding the Synthesis of Linear−Bottlebrush−Linear Block Copolymers: Toward Plastomers with Well-Defined Mechanical Properties.”
Cong teaches linear-bottlebrush-linear (LBL) triblock copolymers with PDMS network strands and PMMA linear ends which form spherical glassy domains (See Figure 1 and Scheme 1).
While Cong does not explicitly teach the LBL of the reference have the material properties of Claim 35, as the LBL anticipates the LBL of the claim, one of ordinary skill in the art is reasonably suggested, when tested appropriately, Cong’s LBL copolymers must anticipate the material properties of Claim 35.
With respect to Claims 37-40, these claims are to future intended use of the article of Claim 30 which has the limitation of said incorporated due to their dependency. Any piece of LBL material is sufficient to anticipate these claims as there is no additional structure imparted on any of these future intended uses. As Cong produces pieces of LBL material Claim 37, Claim 38, Claim 39 and Claim 40 are anticipated.
Claims 30-31, 33-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liang, "Strain-Adaptive Self-Assembled Networks of Linear-Bottlebrush-Linear Copolymers".
Liang teaches linear-bottlebrush-linear (LBL) copolymers (triblock copolymers). These LBL triblock copolymers comprise bottlebrush PDMS and linear polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) end blocks (See Comparison with Experiments section of 8622 and the figures where the spherical domains are the PMMA between bottlebrush PDMS. The conclusion section also teaches the PMMA is spherical domains and the PDMS comprise strands of PDMS (i.e. network strands). PMMA is also a glassy polymer forming these spherical domains whereas the bbPDMS is the “soft elastic block” acting as network strands.
Therefore, the above PMMA-b-bbPDMS-b-PMMA anticipates the recited article made out of the triblock of Claim 30. Note that any sample material or any produced material constitutes an article.
With respect to Claim 31, Liang reasonably suggests elastomeric via elastic network deformation and reversible elongation in the first portion of the first column of page 8618 prior to the Results and Discussion section. No solvent is reasonably suggested to be present in the LBL samples / articles. This anticipates Claim 31.
While Liang does not explicitly teach the LBL of the reference has the material properties of Claims 33-35, as the LBL anticipates the LBL of the claims in both elastomeric and glassy domain sections, one of ordinary skill in the art is reasonably suggested, when tested appropriately, Liang’s LBL copolymers must anticipate the material properties of Claims 33, Claim 34 and Claim 35.
With respect to Claim 36, Liang does not explicitly teach the LBLs are 3D printable, however, the claim is to a capability and there is no evidence to reasonably suggest the PMMA-b-bbPDMS-b-PMMA of Liang are not capable of being 3d printed. This anticipates Claim 36.
With respect to Claims 37-40, these claims are to future intended use of the article of Claim 30. Any piece of LBL material is sufficient to anticipate these claims as there is no additional structure imparted on any of these future intended uses. As Liang produces pieces of LBL material Claim 37, Claim 38, Claim 39 and Claim 40 are anticipated.
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.
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.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nian “Molecular Architecture Directs Linear−Bottlebrush−Linear Triblock Copolymers to Self-Assemble to Soft Reprocessable Elastomers.” in view of Rolland (U.S. 20160137839).
Nian is applied as above under §102.
Nian does not teach or suggest an article made of the recited LBBL in the shape of a gyroid.
Rolland, working in the field of 3d printing of polymeric materials similar to Applicant, teaches 3D printable formed objects for structural elements may be in the form of gyroids. ¶[0303]
As above, Nian suggests the LBBL materials used in additive manufacturing (i.e. 3d printing) processes.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to practice the invention of Nian such that gyroids were produced from the additive manufacturing process suggested by Nian because Rolland suggests gyroids are suitable structural 3D printed objects as above.
This represents the combination of known prior art elements, type of 3d printable structure objects, for the predictable yield of a LBBL 3d printed gyroid object.
This reads over Claim 32.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang, "Strain-Adaptive Self-Assembled Networks of Linear-Bottlebrush-Linear Copolymers" in view of Rolland (U.S. 20160137839).
Liang is applied as above under §102.
Liang does not teach or suggest an article made of the recited LBL in the shape of a gyroid.
Rolland, working in the field of 3d printing of polymeric materials similar to Applicant, teaches 3D printable formed objects for structural elements may be in the form of gyroids. ¶[0303]
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to practice the invention of Liang such that gyroids were produced from the additive manufacturing process suggested by Liang because Rolland suggests gyroids are suitable structural 3D printed objects as above.
This represents the combination of known prior art elements, type of 3d printable structure objects, for the predictable yield of a LBBL 3d printed gyroid object.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M RODD whose telephone number is (571)270-1299. The examiner can normally be reached 7 am - 3:30 pm (Pacific).
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.
/Christopher M Rodd/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights