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 .
This office action is in response to the amendment filed 11/7/2025. Claims 1-6 are currently pending in the application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group I, drawn to claims 1-4, in the reply filed on 11/7/2025 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that search of the subject matter of any one group would encompass the search of remaining groups and can be performed without serious burden.
This is not found persuasive because search burden has been established in office action mailed 9/11/2025 and incorporated here by reference. Specifically, there is search burden in view of the inventions requiring search in different class/subclass.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1 (line 2 and 5) and 2 (line 4) recite “RAFT agent”. Applicant is advised to write full form of the term “RAFT”. For purposes of examination, the term “RAFT” is interpreted as “Reversible Addition fragmentation chain transfer”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tan et al (RSC Advances; vol. 5; pp18922-18931; Year: 2015).
Regarding Tan et al teach photoinitiated RAFT dispersion polymerization. The method comprises polymerizing MMA (i.e., methyl methacrylate) and DPGDA (i.e., dipropylene glycol diacrylate) (i.e., both read on acrylic monomers in present claim 1) in the presence of 0.01 g of BDMAT (i.e., 5,5’-bis(α,α’-dimethyl-α”-acetic acid) trithiocarbonate (see experimental section, page 18923) and reads on RAFT agent in present claim 1) and 0.04 g of photoinitiator (i.e., reads on initiator in present claim 1) (page 18924, bridging paragraph col. 1 to col. 2). Hence, mass ratio of the amount of initiator to the amount of RAFT agent is 4 (i.e., reads on the mass ratio of amount of polymerization initiator to be charged to an amount of the RAFT agent to be charged in present claim 1).
Regarding claim 2, see example, wherein 2.0 g of MMA and 5 wt% of DGPDA based on the amount of MMA (i.e., 0.1 g) are polymerized in the presence of 0.01 g of BDMAT (a RAFT agent) (page 18924, col.1, first full paragraph). Hence, mass ratio of the amount of the monomer to the amount of RAFT agent is 210 (i.e., reads on the mass ratio of amount of monomer to be charged to the amount of RAFT agent to be charged in present claim 2).
Regarding claim 3, see example, wherein 2.0 g of MMA and 5 wt% of DGPDA based on the amount of MMA (i.e., 0.1 g of DGPDA) are polymerized in the presence of 0.04 g of photoinitiator (i.e., an initiator) (page 18924, col.1, first full paragraph). Hence, mass ratio of the amount of the monomer to the amount of initiator is 52.5 (i.e., reads on the mass ratio of amount of monomer to be charged to the amount of initiator to be charged in present claim 3)
Regarding claim 4, Given that process of polymerization, in Tan et al, is the same as in present claims, it is the Office’s position that the acrylic copolymer, of Tan et al, inherently has molecular weight dispersity of 2.0 or greater and 3.0 or less. Case law holds that a material and its properties are inseparable. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tan et al (Polymers; vol. 9; pp 1-14; Year: 2017).
Regarding claim 1, Tan et al teach photoinitiated RAFT dispersion polymerization of MMA and MA. The method comprises polymerizing MMA (i.e., methyl methacrylate) and MAA (i.e., methacrylic acid) (i.e., both read on acrylic monomers in present claim 1) in the presence of 0.01 g of BDMAT (i.e., 5,5’-bis(α,α’-dimethyl-α”-acetic acid) trithiocarbonate (see section 3.1, page 3) and reads on RAFT agent in present claim 1) and 0.06 g of HMPP (i.e., 2-hydroxy-2-methyl)propiophenone (see section 3.1, page 3) and reads on initiator in present claim 1) (page 3, section 2.3). Hence, mass ratio of the amount of initiator to the amount of RAFT agent is 6 (i.e., reads on the mass ratio of amount of polymerization initiator to be charged to an amount of the RAFT agent to be charged in present claim 1).
Regarding claim 2, see example, wherein 2.0 g of MMA and 0.04 g of MAA are polymerized in the presence of 0.01 g of BDMAT (a RAFT agent) (page 3, section 2.3). Hence, mass ratio of the amount of the monomer to the amount of RAFT agent is 204 (i.e., reads on the mass ratio of amount of monomer to be charged to the amount of RAFT agent to be charged in present claim 2).
Regarding claim 4, Tan et al teach that molecular weight distribution were broad in all cases, which can be attributed to the high (photoinitiator)/(RAFT agent) ratio of > 2.5 (page 4, first full paragraph). Given that process of polymerization, in Tan et al, is the same as in present claims and high (photoinitiator)/(RAFT agent) ratio of > 2.5 is attributed to a broad molecular weight distribution, it is the Office’s position that the acrylic copolymer, of Tan et al, inherently has molecular weight dispersity of 2.0 or greater and 3.0 or less. Case law holds that a material and its properties are inseparable. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARUNA P REDDY whose telephone number is (571)272-6566. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM M-F.
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.
/KARUNA P REDDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764