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
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1 and 31-35, in the reply filed on 04/16/2026 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)).
Claims 36-49 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/16/2026.
In the amendments filed on 04/16/2026, claims 1 and 31-49 are pending. Claims 1, 31, 34, 36, 43, 45, and 49 are amended. Claims 2-30 are canceled. Claims 36-49 are withdrawn.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 31, 32, 34, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuma (US 2019/0106529 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 31, and 32, Kuma teaches a resin that is a reaction product of an xylylene diisocyanate composition and a polyol component and/or a polythiol component [0011, 0085, 0086, 0135, 0145, 0146, 0157, 0159, 0160, 0161, 0162], wherein the xylylene diisocyanate composition contains a xylylene diisocyanate and a chloromethylbenzyl isocyanate, wherein the content ratio of the chloromethylbenzyl isocyanate is 0.2 ppm or more and below 600 ppm [0009], wherein examples of the polyol component include a low molecule weight polyol [0095], wherein the low molecular weight polyol is a compound having two or more hydroxyl groups, and examples thereof include isosorbide [0096], wherein examples of the polythiol component include aliphatic polythiol [0125], wherein examples of the aliphatic polythiol include methanedithiol, 1,2-ethanedithiol, 1,3-propanedithiol, 1,4-butanedithiol, 1,5-pentanedithiol, and 1,6-hexanedithiol [0126], wherein the reaction of the xylylene diisocyanate composition with the polyol component and/or the polythiol component is a polymerization [0145, 0146], wherein the polymerization reaction may be in the presence of a known urethane-formation catalyst [0148], wherein the polymerizable composition is preferably used as various industrial materials such as polyurethane materials [0262], wherein reaction of a polyisocyanate and a polyol component and/or a polythiol component obtains a poly(thio)urethane [0003], which reads on an optionally linear polymer comprising at least one subunit, wherein the at least one subunit comprises: (i) one dianhydrohexitole moiety, (ii) at least one urethane moiety, and optionally (iii) two or more mono-thioether moieties wherein sulphur atoms of the mono-thioether moieties are separated by at least one methylene group, wherein the at least one urethane moiety comprises an oxygen atom that is a substituent of the dianhydrohexitole moiety and is formed from a hydroxyl group of the dianhydrohexitole moiety, wherein the at least one subunit optionally comprises two sulphur atoms provided as two mono-thioether moieties separated by at least one methylene group, and the linear polymer of claim 1, comprising at least a first urethane moiety and a second urethane moiety wherein the oxygen atom of each urethane moiety is a substituent of the dianhydrohexitole moiety and is formed from the hydroxyl group of the dianhydrohexitole moiety.
Kuma does not teach a specific embodiment the polymer being a linear polymer and wherein the at least one subunit further comprises (iii) two or more mono-thioether moieties wherein sulphur atoms of the mono-thioether moieties are separated by at least one methylene group, wherein the at least one subunit comprises two sulphur atoms provided as two mono-thioether moieties separated by at least one methylene group. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select Kuma’s resin to be a reaction product of Kuma’s xylylene diisocyanate composition and Kuma’s polyol component and Kuma’s polythiol component, and to select Kuma’s polythiol component to be methanedithiol, 1,2-ethanedithiol, 1,3-propanedithiol, 1,4-butanedithiol, 1,5-pentanedithiol, and/or 1,6-hexanedithiol. The proposed modification would read on the polymer being a linear polymer and wherein the at least one subunit further comprises (iii) two or more mono-thioether moieties wherein sulphur atoms of the mono-thioether moieties are separated by at least one methylene group as claimed, wherein the at least one subunit comprises two sulphur atoms provided as two mono-thioether moieties separated by at least one methylene group as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial for providing Kuma’s poly(thio)urethane with polyurethane and polythiourethane groups, for providing a linear poly(thio)urethane, and for modifying mechanical properties of Kuma’s poly(thio)urethane because Kuma teaches that resin is a reaction product of an xylylene diisocyanate composition and a polyol component and/or a polythiol component [0011, 0085, 0086, 0135, 0145, 0146, 0157, 0159, 0160, 0161, 0162], that examples of the polythiol component include aliphatic polythiol [0125], wherein examples of the aliphatic polythiol include methanedithiol, 1,2-ethanedithiol, 1,3-propanedithiol, 1,4-butanedithiol, 1,5-pentanedithiol, and 1,6-hexanedithiol [0126], that the reaction of the xylylene diisocyanate composition with the polyol component and/or the polythiol component is a polymerization [0145, 0146], that the polymerization reaction may be in the presence of a known urethane-formation catalyst [0148], that the polymerizable composition is preferably used as various industrial materials such as polyurethane materials [0262], that reaction of a polyisocyanate and a polyol component and/or a polythiol component obtains a poly(thio)urethane [0003], because Kuma’s methanedithiol, 1,2-ethanedithiol, 1,3-propanedithiol, 1,4-butanedithiol, 1,5-pentanedithiol, and/or 1,6-hexanedithiol are aliphatic and linear and are dithiols instead of aromatic or branched and instead of trithiols or tetrathiols, because aliphatic and linear compounds are more flexible than aromatic and branched compounds, because aromatic compounds are more rigid than aliphatic and linear compounds, because dithiols result in a linear poly(thiol)urethane, and because using aliphatic and linear compounds that are dithiols instead of aromatic or branched compounds that are dithiols, trithiols, or tetrathiols therefore would have affected mechanical properties of Kuma’s poly(thio)urethane.
Regarding claim 34, Kuma teaches that examples of the aliphatic polythiol include 1,4-butanedithiol and 1,6-hexanedithiol [0126], which optionally reads on wherein the two or more mono-thioether moieties are derived from a dithiol selected from 1,4-butanedithiol and 1,6-hexanedithiol as claimed.
Kuma does not teach a specific embodiment wherein the two or more mono-thioether moieties are derived from a dithiol selected from the claimed group. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select Kuma’s resin to be a reaction product of Kuma’s xylylene diisocyanate composition and Kuma’s polyol component and Kuma’s polythiol component, and to select Kuma’s polythiol component to be 1,4-butanedithiol and/or 1,6-hexanedithiol. The proposed modification would read on wherein the two or more mono-thioether moieties are derived from a dithiol selected from 1,4-butanedithiol and 1,6-hexanedithiol as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial for providing Kuma’s poly(thio)urethane with polyurethane and polythiourethane groups, for providing a linear poly(thio)urethane, and for modifying mechanical properties of Kuma’s poly(thio)urethane because Kuma teaches that resin is a reaction product of an xylylene diisocyanate composition and a polyol component and/or a polythiol component [0011, 0085, 0086, 0135, 0145, 0146, 0157, 0159, 0160, 0161, 0162], that examples of the polythiol component include aliphatic polythiol [0125], wherein examples of the aliphatic polythiol include 1,4-butanedithiol and 1,6-hexanedithiol [0126], that the reaction of the xylylene diisocyanate composition with the polyol component and/or the polythiol component is a polymerization [0145, 0146], that the polymerization reaction may be in the presence of a known urethane-formation catalyst [0148], that the polymerizable composition is preferably used as various industrial materials such as polyurethane materials [0262], that reaction of a polyisocyanate and a polyol component and/or a polythiol component obtains a poly(thio)urethane [0003], because Kuma’s 1,4-butanedithiol and/or 1,6-hexanedithiol are aliphatic and linear and are dithiols instead of aromatic or branched and instead of trithiols or tetrathiols, because aliphatic and linear compounds are more flexible than aromatic and branched compounds, because aromatic compounds are more rigid than aliphatic and linear compounds, because dithiols result in a linear poly(thiol)urethane, and because using aliphatic and linear compounds that are dithiols instead of aromatic or branched compounds that are dithiols, trithiols, or tetrathiols therefore would have affected mechanical properties of Kuma’s poly(thio)urethane.
Regarding claim 35, the Office recognizes that all of the claimed physical properties are not positively taught by Kuma, namely that the linear polymer comprises a tensile strength of at least 55 MPa. However, Kuma renders obvious all of the claimed ingredients, amounts, process steps, and process conditions of the linear polymer of claims 1, 31, 32, and 34 as explained above. Furthermore, the specification of the instant application recites that the thermoplastic polymers according to the present disclosure possess excellent thermoplastic properties including outstanding toughness, resulting from its semi-crystallinity and low glass transition temperature that surpasses many leading plastics such as nylon 6 and high-density polyethylene (HDPE) (p. 10, l. 21-24), that hence, in another embodiment, polymer comprises a tensile strength of at least 55 MPa (p. 10, l. 24-25), that these copolymers were obtained by varying the relative quantity of monomers (e.g., isoidide monomers, isomannide monomers, etc.) in the feed and copolymerizing them with a dithiol (e.g., 1,8-octanedithiol, etc.) to create a copolymer (p. 11, l. 11-13), that these resulting copolymers were shown to behave like tough plastic by having increased tensile strength (p. 11, l. 13-14), that this indicates that the isoidide moiety could also influence the bulk polymer properties without significantly altering the crystallinity or tensile properties (p. 17, l. 30-31), and that it was possible to tune mechanical properties independent of degradation as well since both IIPU and co-llsolMso showed similar degradation profiles but tremendously different tensile behavior (p. 17, l. 32-34). Therefore, the claimed physical properties would naturally arise from the linear polymer that is rendered obvious by Kuma. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (MPEP 2112.01(I)). If the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (MPEP 2112.01(II)). If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be presented to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, amounts, process steps, and process conditions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 33 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 33, Kuma (US 2019/0106529 A1) renders obvious the linear polymer of claim 1 as explained above.
Kuma does not teach that the at least one subunit is selected from the group consisting of
PNG
media_image1.png
78
384
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image2.png
76
402
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image3.png
68
404
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, and derivatives thereof and wherein δ is from 4 to 12. Although Kuma teaches that the resin is a reaction product of an xylylene diisocyanate composition and a polyol component and/or a polythiol component [0011, 0085, 0086, 0135, 0145, 0146, 0157, 0159, 0160, 0161, 0162], wherein the xylylene diisocyanate composition contains a xylylene diisocyanate and a chloromethylbenzyl isocyanate, wherein the content ratio of the chloromethylbenzyl isocyanate is 0.2 ppm or more and below 600 ppm [0009], wherein examples of the polyol component include a low molecule weight polyol [0095], wherein the low molecular weight polyol is a compound having two or more hydroxyl groups, and examples thereof include isosorbide [0096], wherein examples of the polythiol component include aliphatic polythiol [0125], wherein examples of the aliphatic polythiol include 1,4-butanedithiol, 1,5-pentanedithiol, and 1,6-hexanedithiol [0126], Kuma’s teachings do not read on at least one subunit is selected from the claimed group. The prior art of record do not teach or suggest the linear polymer of claim 1, wherein the at least one subunit is selected from the claimed group.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 8-11, filed 04/16/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1, 31, 32, and 35 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stewart et al. (US 10,696,778 B1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kuma (US 2019/0106529 A1).
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 8-11, filed 04/16/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 34 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stewart et al. (US 10,696,778 B1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kuma (US 2019/0106529 A1).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID KARST whose telephone number is (571)270-7732. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM-5:00 PM.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/DAVID T KARST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights