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 .
Please note that the current Non-Final Rejection supersedes the Final Rejection dated 11/25/2025 because of applicant’s persuasive arguments of 02/11/2026.
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 13-14 and 27-30 are currently pending in a response of 02/11/2026 wherein new claims 27-30 are added.
The Examiner contacted Attorney Johnathan M. Spenner on 02/27/2026 to discuss a possible allowability of the instant case and during the discussions, the Examiner suggested incorporating claim 27 into claim 13, and however, Applicant declined.
Withdrawn rejections:
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed 02/11/2026 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. The Examiner has re-weighed all the evidence of record. Any rejection and/or objection not specifically addressed below are herein withdrawn.
The following rejection and/or objection are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set of rejection and/or objection presently being applied to the instant application.
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.
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 13-14 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zaborin et al. “Phosphate-containing polyethylene glycol polymers prevent lethal sepsis by multi-drug-resistant pathogens,” Antimicrobial agents mechanisms of action: physiological effects and chemotherapy, 2014, vol. 58, issue 2 (IDS of 08/11/2023, the document is found in parent application no. 16/338330)
Applicant claims the below claim filed on 09/10/2025:
PNG
media_image1.png
156
800
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Prior Art
Zaborin discloses a triblock copolymer having ABA structure for suppressing microbial virulence wherein A is hydrophilic and B is hydrophobic cyclic ring which is aromatic; the said ABA type copolymer can be e.g., a phosphorylated high-molecular-weight polyethylene glycol 15-20 (Pi-PEG 15-20) with a hydrophobic bis-aromatic moiety at the polymer center, which is represented by the below formula of triblock copolymer of Pi-PEG 15-20 wherein PEG arms are appended to a bis-phenol A moiety at the center of the polymer chain, giving ABA structure wherein the B group is small but very hydrophobic and A groups are hydrophilic homopolymers; the bisphenol A is 4,4’-(propane-2,2-diyl)diphenolate) reads on the hydrophobic core comprising carbocyclic ring and the said each PEG chains are covalently attached to at least two phosphate groups because the structure has average number 3.5 of phosphate per polymer chain (see e.g., page 966, 969 (Results: Synthesis of Pi-PEG 15-20), and Table 1 on page 972) which reads on the claimed step (b):
PNG
media_image2.png
178
953
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Although Zaborin does not expressly disclose covalent attaching step (a), such step (a) is clearly shows from the above chemical structure because a bis-aromatic carbocyclic core (two phenyl rings) and two PEG chains are attached to that core via ether linkage and thus reads on the claimed covalent step (a) (instant claims 13-14).
Further Zaborin teaches bisphenol-A (CH3)2C(-C6H4OH)2 at center and thus 4,4-(propane-2,2-diyl)diphenolate salt is derived from the BPA; and further the phenolic OH groups of BPA must be deprotonated to form that ether linkage, which means the BPA phenolate salt is necessarily used in synthesis (instant claim 30).
PNG
media_image3.png
508
1076
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In light of the foregoing, instant claims 13-14 and 30 are anticipated by Zaborin.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Zaborin’s PEG15-20 compound is not a pure ABA triblock but a mixture of polymers of varying molecular weights including ABA triblock as explained in the instant specification.
The Examiner responds that Zaborin discloses the compound Pi-PEG 15-20 as phosphorylated triblock polymer (abstract), and that is, the said structure comprises two PEG polymer segments covalently attached to a distinct hydrophobic aromatic core segment, forming an A-B-A triblock architecture, and it is noted that a polymer comprising covalently connected segments constitutes a triblock copolymer under ordinary polymer science terminology. According to the specification (see [0009] of instant publication), Zaborin’s compound fits the definition of triblock. Further the claimed invention does not require the term “pure”. Even further the specification also does not define “pure” and provide how to measure purity. It is noted that “pure” is also relative term.
In light of the foregoing, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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.
Claims 13, 14, 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaborin et al., “Phosphate-containing polyethylene glycol polymers prevent lethal sepsis by multi-drug-resistant pathogens,” Antimicrobial agents mechanisms of action: physiological effects and chemotherapy, 2014, vol. 58, issue 2 (IDS of 08/11/2023, the document is found in parent application no. 16/338330) as applied to instant claims 13-14 and 30.
Zaborin was discussed above with respect to instant claims 13, 14 and 30.
Zaborin discloses diphenylpropane (BPA core) and but does not expressly teach diphenylmethyl moiety of instant claim 29. However, both Zaborin and the claimed invention contain diaryl hydrophobic cores, rigid aromatic linkers between PEG arms, two phenyl rings connected through a central carbon, and only difference is that Zaborin BPA has two methyl groups on central carbon and the claimed diphenylmethyl has one hydrogen instead of methyl substituents, but which is a minor structural variation within the same diphenyl linker. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to substitute one known hydrophobic diaryl core for another structurally similar diaryl core to achieve the same linker function in a PEG triblock copolymer. In this case, please see MPEP 2143 B: that if two structures are close analogous serving the same function, substitution is obvious absent unexpected results (instant claim 29).
Thus, claims 13, 14, 29 and 30 are obvious over Zaborin.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaborin et al., “Phosphate-containing polyethylene glycol polymers prevent lethal sepsis by multi-drug-resistant pathogens,” Antimicrobial agents mechanisms of action: physiological effects and chemotherapy, 2014, vol. 58, issue 2 (IDS of 08/11/2023, the document is found in parent application no. 16/338330) as applied to instant claims 13-14 and 30 in view of in view of Sill et al. (US2014/0271885A1, IDS of 08/11/2023).
However, Zaborin does not expressly teach the triblock polymer has a dispersity (D) of instant claim 27. The deficiency is cured by Sill.
Sill discloses polymer chemistry and more particularly to multiblock (e.g., triblock) copolymers of hydrophilic polymer such as PEG and hydrophobic components (abstract and [0011]); the copolymers have a polydispersity of 1.0 ([0023] and [0091]) which touches claimed 1.0. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the teachings of Zaborin/Veronese with the polydispersity range of Sill, polydispersity because Sill discloses similar polymers having a 1.0 of polydispersity which means more uniform or nearly the same size particles or molecules, leading to enhanced material properties (instant claim 27).
In light of the foregoing, instant claim 27 is obvious over Zaborin in view of Sill.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaborin et al. as applied to instant claims 13-14 and 30 in view of Thompson et al., “Synthesis and applications of heterobifunctional poly(ethylene oxide) oligomers”, Dept of Chemistry and the Macromolecules and Interfaces Institute, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and state University, 2007, pp. 45-372.
However, Zaborin does not expressly teach sequential anionic ring-opening polymerization of instant claim 28. The deficiency is cured by Thompson.
Thompson discloses poly(ethylene oxide)(PEO) that is employed extensively in pharmaceutical and biomedical arenas mainly due to their excellent physical and biological properties (abstract); the one desirable characteristic of PEO is the relatively narrow molecular weight distribution that can be achieved compared with many other polymers. PEO prepared by anionic ring-opening polymerization generally has a polydispersity less than 1.1 that also overlaps the instant range of less than or equal to 1.0, and the anionic ring-opening polymerization of EO can be living in nature due to the stability of the propagating species (section 2 on page 345); and may biologically relevant ligands have been covalently attached to PEO (see section 3 on page 346).
It would have been obvious to modify the teachings of Zaborin with anionic ring-opening polymerization of EO in order to enhance stability of the propagating species as taught by Thompson.
In light of the foregoing, instant claim 28 is obvious over Zaborin in view of Thompson.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s other arguments have been fully considered, but are not persuasive for the reasons as noted in the body of Action.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 13-14 and 27 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of patent no. 11,571,443 in view of Zaborin et al.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. That is, claims 1-2 patent ‘443 are directed to a triblock copolymer comprising (a) a hydrophobic core; and (b) at least two polyethylene glycol chains, and at least one polyethylene glycol chain is a phosphorylated polyethylene glycol comprising more than two phosphate group, while instant claims 13-14 are directed to a method of preparing the triblock of the same structure by covalent attachments between two PEGs and hydrophobic core, and between phosphates and PEG. Both inventions require the same ingredients and triblock structure of Pi-PEGs, and overlapping polydispersity. Further, patent ‘443 directed to a product discloses the method of producing. Further, even when the claimed steps are not recited in patent ‘443, Zaborin disclose the claimed covalent attaching steps a) and b), as noted above. Thus, it would have been obvious to combine patent ‘443 and Zaborin in order to produce the claimed method and product therefrom having suppressed activity for microbial virulence in pharmaceutical field, as taught by Zaborin.
Consequently, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the obvious variation of the instantly claimed subject matter over the patent ‘443 subject matter in view of Zaborin.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are not persuasive for the reasons as noted in the body of action.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYUNG S CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1392. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Yong (Brian-Yong) S Kwon can be reached at 571-272-0581. 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.
/KYUNG S CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613