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 without traverse of Group I directed to the pentablock copolymer species in the reply filed on April 13, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 4, 5, 8 and 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on April 13, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-3, 6, 7 and 9-15 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.
In claim 1, line 1, the “styrenic” term is narrower than the “vinyl aromatic” monomers defining blocks A and C. Notably, vinyl aromatic monomers include non-styrene monomers such as vinylnaphthalene [0016].
In claim 1, line 2, the substituent defining the “para-substituted” vinyl aromatic monomer is not apparent.
In claim 1, lines 4-5, it is unclear what is meant by the confusing recitation “1,2 and 1-4 butadiene units”.
In claim 3, it is unclear how the depicted hexablock having a ABCCBA structure further defines the “pentablock” per claim 2.
In claim 3, no express antecedent basis is seen for “formula (I)”.
In claim 9, line 2, there is no express antecedent basis for “multiblock”.
In claim 10, no express antecedent basis is seen for the “ortho”/“meta”- substituted styrene monomers, alpha-methylstyrene, 1,1-diphenylethylene or 1,2-diphenylethylene.
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, 2, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0308185 (Bae).
Bae discloses a quaternized styrenic multiblock copolymer comprising:
-at least one block derived from a vinyl aromatic monomer (meets Applicants’ block A);
- at least one block comprising polymerized hydrogenated butadiene units (meets Applicants’ block B);
and
- a mid-block or end-block derived from a vinyl aromatic monomer susceptible to quaternization (meets Applicants’ block C),
wherein the quaternized multiblock copolymer may be a triblock, tetrablock or pentablock (meets Applicants’ block configuration) having an ion exchange capacity (IEC) of from 0.60 to 1.52 meq/g (meets Applicants’ IEC) and quaternary ammonium groups (meets Applicants’ quaternary ammonium cations) (e.g., abstract, [0005-0017], [0027-0028], Table 1, claims).
In essence, Bae differs from claims 1 and 10 in not expressly defining the quaternized block copolymer in terms of a degree of quaternization. Bae is unlimited as regards the x mole% governing the quaternized units and, as such, implicitly suggests that any degree of quaternization (inclusive of that presently claimed) can be used in accordance with the ultimate properties desired and with the reasonable expectation of success. Thus, absent evidence of unusual or unexpected results, no patentability can be seen in the presently claimed subject matter.
As to claim 2, Bae sets forth pentablock of formula (IV) [0009] having an ACBCA structure.
As to claim 6, Bae’s exemplified quaternized block copolymers have an ion exchange capacity (IEC) of from 0.60 to 1.52 meq/g (Table 1).
As to claim 7, Bae discloses mid-blocks or end-blocks derived from a vinyl aromatic monomer (formulas IX and XII) comprising a linear side chain susceptible to electrophilic aromatic substitution reaction.
As to claim 9, Bae discloses vinyl aromatic monomer blocks and
polymerized hydrogenated butadiene blocks which are not susceptible to electrophilic aromatic substitution reaction.
As to claim 11, the presently claimed polymerized para-substituted styrene is recited as an alternative block A and, as such, is not required.
As to claim 12, Bae is unlimited as regards the butadiene vinyl content before hydrogenation and, as such, implicitly suggests that any vinyl content (inclusive of that presently claimed) can be used in accordance with the ultimate properties desired and with the reasonable expectation of success. Thus, absent evidence of unusual or unexpected results, no patentability can be seen in the presently claimed subject matter.
As to claim 14, it would be expected that Bae’s quaternized styrenic block copolymers, having more than one styrene-based block, would have a high styrene content inclusive of that presently claimed.
As to claim 15, Bae uses an aryl bromide-containing monoamine (Fig. 1).
Claims 3 and 13 have not been included in this rejection because it is not seen that Bae discloses or suggests the claimed features.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ana L Woodward whose telephone number is (571)272-1082. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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 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.
/ANA L. WOODWARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights