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 .
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 1-20 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 1 recites the phrases “the hydrophilic blocks” and “the hydrophobic blocks,” which lack antecedent basis. Claim 1 specifies that the hydrophilic and hydrophobic blocks are each formed of “one or more blocks”. This language is inconsistent with the phrases “the hydrophilic blocks” and “the hydrophobic blocks” (i.e., the phrases “the hydrophilic blocks” and “the hydrophobic blocks” each imply the presence of multiple hydrophilic blocks and multiple hydrophobic blocks, respectively, yet per the claim, only one hydrophilic block and/or only one hydrophobic block may be present). In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as reciting “the one or more hydrophilic blocks” and “the one or more hydrophobic blocks”.
Claims 2-10 are rejected as indefinite due to dependence on indefinite claim 1.
Claim 11 recites the phrase “the hydrophobic blocks,” which lacks antecedent basis. Claim 11 previously defines the block copolymer as having only a singular hydrophobic block. It is not clear if the claim is intending to recite only a singular hydrophobic block, or multiple hydrophobic blocks (i.e., the claim implies both, but both are mutually exclusive from one another). In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim 1 will be interpreted as specifying only one hydrophobic block.
Claims 12-20 are rejected as indefinite due to dependence on indefinite claim 11.
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 1-2, 5, 8, 10-11, 15-16, 18-21, 25-31, and 35-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang (CN112831395A). Wang is read from an English machine translation which has been placed in the application file.
With regards to claim 1, Wang discloses a membrane located within a patch clamp system for carrying nanopore proteins (i.e., a barrier, which is implied to be located between first and second fluids), wherein the membrane is formed around a plurality of holes located on an array chip of holes (i.e., the barrier is suspended by a barrier support defining an aperture, including one more layers suspended across the aperture) (Wang – translation: abstract; page 3, “It should be noted that…”; page 4, “According to an embodiment of the present invention, the self-assembly is performed…” and “According to a specific embodiment of the present invention, the cell-like membrane is obtained…”). The membrane is formed of a block copolymer having one hydrophobic block located between two hydrophilic blocks, the hydrophilic blocks forming outer surfaces of a bilayer structure and the hydrophobic block forming an interior of the bilayer structure, the block copolymer being, for example, 6PMOXA-33PDMS-6PMOXA polymer (i.e., poly(2-methy oxazoline)-b-poly(dimethyl siloxane)-b-poly(2-methyl oxazoline), which is a block copolymer having two hydrophilic blocks which may be considered to have an approximate length A and one or more hydrophobic blocks having an approximate length B, the hydrophilic blocks forming outer surfaces of the barrier and the hydrophobic blocks being located within the barrier, the hydrophobic blocks comprising PDMS) (Wang: page 3, “It should be noted that…”; page 4, “According to an embodiment… diblock… or triblock…”; page 5, “1. The unmodified…”).
With regards to claim 2, alternatively, the block copolymer of Wang may be formed of two blocks (i.e., a diblock copolymer) (Wang: page 2, “Based on the discovery…”).
With regards to claim 5, the block copolymer is a triblock copolymer having two hydrophilic blocks and one hydrophobic block (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 8, alternatively, the block copolymer may be a triblock copolymer having two hydrophobic blocks and one hydrophilic block.
With regards to claim 10, the membrane of Wang includes a nanopore which provides transmission between adjacent fluids surrounding the membrane (i.e., further comprising a nanopore disposed therein and providing contact between the first fluid and the second fluid) (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 11, Wang discloses a membrane located within a patch clamp system for carrying nanopore proteins (i.e., a barrier, which is implied to be located between first and second fluids), wherein the membrane is formed around a plurality of holes located on an array chip of holes (i.e., the barrier is suspended by a barrier support defining an aperture, including one more layers suspended across the aperture) (Wang – translation: abstract; page 3, “It should be noted that…”; page 4, “According to an embodiment of the present invention, the self-assembly is performed…” and “According to a specific embodiment of the present invention, the cell-like membrane is obtained…”). The membrane is formed of a block copolymer having one hydrophobic block located between two hydrophilic blocks, the hydrophilic blocks forming outer surfaces of a bilayer structure and the hydrophobic block forming an interior of the bilayer structure, the block copolymer being, for example, 6PMOXA-33PDMS-6PMOXA polymer (i.e., poly(2-methy oxazoline)-b-poly(dimethyl siloxane)-b-poly(2-methyl oxazoline), which is a block copolymer having two hydrophilic blocks disposed opposite a hydrophobic block, the first and second hydrophilic blocks forming outer surfaces of the barrier and the hydrophobic blocks being located within the barrier) (Wang: page 3, “It should be noted that…”; page 4, “According to an embodiment… diblock… or triblock…”; page 5, “1. The unmodified…”).
With regards to claim 15, the hydrophobic block comprises PDMS (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 16, alternatively, the hydrophilic block may comprise polymerized ethylene oxide (Wang: page 3, “The hydrophilic monomer…”).
With regards to claim 18, the first and second hydrophilic blocks may comprise poly(2-methy oxazoline) (i.e., a methyl group) (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 19, the first and second hydrophilic blocks may comprise poly(2-methy oxazoline) (i.e., a methyl group) (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 20, since the first and second hydrophilic blocks are connected to ends of the hydrophobic block, there must exist molecules responsible for these connections (i.e., first and second linkers coupling in the manner as claimed).
With regards to claim 21, Wang discloses a membrane located within a patch clamp system for carrying nanopore proteins (i.e., a barrier, which is implied to be located between first and second fluids), wherein the membrane is formed around a plurality of holes located on an array chip of holes (i.e., the barrier is suspended by a barrier support defining an aperture, including one more layers suspended across the aperture) (Wang – translation: abstract; page 3, “It should be noted that…”; page 4, “According to an embodiment of the present invention, the self-assembly is performed…” and “According to a specific embodiment of the present invention, the cell-like membrane is obtained…”). The layers of the membrane are formed of layers of block copolymer having one hydrophobic block and one hydrophilic block, the hydrophilic block forming outer surfaces of a bilayer structure and the hydrophobic block forming an interior of the bilayer structure (i.e., each molecule of the copolymer comprising a hydrophobic block coupled to a hydrophilic block, constituting first and second layers, the second layer forming first and second outer surfaces, the hydrophobic blocks of the first and second pluralities of molecules contacting one another within the barrier) (Wang: page 3, “It should be noted that…”; page 4, “According to an embodiment… diblock… or triblock…”; page 5, “1. The unmodified…”).
With regards to claim 25, alternatively, the hydrophilic block may comprise polymerized ethylene oxide (Wang: page 3, “The hydrophilic monomer…”).
With regards to claim 26, the hydrophobic block comprises PDMS (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 27, since the hydrophilic block is connected to an end of the hydrophobic block, there must exist a molecule responsible for these connections (i.e., a linker).
With regards to claim 28, it is noted that, technically, any functional group may be a product of a click reaction, and therefore, the linker of claim 27 must necessarily meet the present claim.
With regards to claim 29, the first and second hydrophilic blocks comprise methyl groups (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 30, the membrane of Wang comprises a nanopore disposed within its barrier for fluid transport (i.e., fluidically coupling the first and second fluids) (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 31, Wang discloses a membrane located within a patch clamp system for carrying nanopore proteins (i.e., a barrier, which is implied to be located between first and second fluids), wherein the membrane is formed around a plurality of holes located on an array chip of holes (i.e., the barrier is suspended by a barrier support defining an aperture, including one more layers suspended across the aperture) (Wang – translation: abstract; page 3, “It should be noted that…”; page 4, “According to an embodiment of the present invention, the self-assembly is performed…” and “According to a specific embodiment of the present invention, the cell-like membrane is obtained…”). The membrane layers are each formed of a block copolymer having two hydrophobic blocks and one hydrophilic blocks, the hydrophilic blocks (of the multiple polymers) forming outer surfaces of a bilayer structure and the hydrophobic block forming an interior of the bilayer structure (i.e., implies that the hydrophobic blocks of the first and second pluralities contact one another) (Wang: page 3, “It should be noted that…”; page 4, “According to an embodiment… diblock… or triblock…”; page 5, “1. The unmodified…”).
With regards to claim 35, alternatively, the hydrophilic block may comprise polymerized ethylene oxide (Wang: page 3, “The hydrophilic monomer…”).
With regards to claim 36, the hydrophobic blocks comprise PDMS (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 37, since the hydrophilic block is connected to ends of the hydrophobic blocks, there must exist a molecules responsible for these connections (i.e., a linker).
With regards to claim 38, it is noted that, technically, any functional group may be a product of a click reaction, and therefore, the molecule connecting the ends of the hydrophobic blocks and hydrophilic block.
With regards to claim 39, the hydrophilic block comprises a methyl group (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 40, the membrane of Wang comprises a nanopore disposed within its barrier for fluid transport (i.e., fluidically coupling the first and second fluids) (see above discussion).
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.
Claims 3-4, 6-7, 9, 12-14, 17, 22-24, and 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang as applied to claims 1, 11, 21, and 31 above, and in further view of Kellis et al (WO2015/095163A2).
With regards to claim 3, Wang discloses a membrane as applied to claim 2 above (see above discussion). However, Wang does not appear to recite a hydrophobic block in the form of a polybutadiene.
Kellis is directed to a biomimetic membrane comprising a nanoporous material formed of a copolymer including hydrophobic and hydrophilic blocks, wherein the hydrophobic blocks include polybutadiene (Kellis: para. [0002]-[0005], [00290], [00292], and [00352]). Kellis discloses polybutadiene as well-known in the art and especially preferred for the formation of a hydrophobic portions of its polymer, and in particular, that unsaturated polymer such as polybutadiene have improved oxygen diffusion rates (Kellis: para. [00290] and [00292]). Wang and Kellis are analogous art in that they are related to the same field of endeavor of biomimetic membranes comprising block copolymers formed of hydrophilic and hydrophobic blocks. A person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to have selected the polybutadiene of Kellis for the hydrophobic block of the copolymer of Wang, in order to provide improved oxygen diffusion, and since such material is well-known in the art (Kellis: para. [00290] and [00292]).
With regards to claim 4, Kellis teaches that, in the field of biomimetic membranes, the size of the formed membranes “can be controlled by… methods known to those skilled in the art,” and further, that the size of individual block copolymer segments and their ratio “can easily be controlled” (Kellis: para. [00281] and [00314]). According to Kellis, such sizes are controlled in order to ensure that the formed membranes are stabilized against fusion with other materials and enzymatic degradation (Kellis: para. [00281]). In light of the foregoing, a person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to have optimized the thickness of the formed membrane relative to the number of segments A and B, as such adjustment is explicitly instructed by Kellis, under the guise of providing improved resistance to fusion and enzymatic degradation (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 6, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have selected polyisobutylene for the hydrophobic block in the copolymer of Wang and Kellis in order to enable improved affinity to target molecules (Kellis: para. [00304] and [00321]).
With regards to claim 7, Kellis teaches that, in the field of biomimetic membranes, the size of the formed membranes “can be controlled by… methods known to those skilled in the art,” and further, that the size of individual block copolymer segments and their ratio “can easily be controlled” (Kellis: para. [00281] and [00314]). According to Kellis, such sizes are controlled in order to ensure that the formed membranes are stabilized against fusion with other materials and enzymatic degradation (Kellis: para. [00281]). In light of the foregoing, a person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to have optimized the thickness of the formed membrane relative to the number of segments A and B, as such adjustment is explicitly instructed by Kellis, under the guise of providing improved resistance to fusion and enzymatic degradation (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 9, Kellis teaches that, in the field of biomimetic membranes, the size of the formed membranes “can be controlled by… methods known to those skilled in the art,” and further, that the size of individual block copolymer segments and their ratio “can easily be controlled” (Kellis: para. [00281] and [00314]). According to Kellis, such sizes are controlled in order to ensure that the formed membranes are stabilized against fusion with other materials and enzymatic degradation (Kellis: para. [00281]). In light of the foregoing, a person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to have optimized the thickness of the formed membrane relative to the number of segments A and B, as such adjustment is explicitly instructed by Kellis, under the guise of providing improved resistance to fusion and enzymatic degradation (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 12, Kellis teaches that, in the field of biomimetic membranes, the size of the formed membranes “can be controlled by… methods known to those skilled in the art,” and further, that the size of individual block copolymer segments and their ratio “can easily be controlled” (Kellis: para. [00281] and [00314]). According to Kellis, such sizes are controlled in order to ensure that the formed membranes are stabilized against fusion with other materials and enzymatic degradation (Kellis: para. [00281]). In light of the foregoing, a person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to have optimized the thickness of the formed membrane relative to the number of segments A and B, as such adjustment is explicitly instructed by Kellis, under the guise of providing improved resistance to fusion and enzymatic degradation (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 13, Kellis teaches that, in the field of biomimetic membranes, the size of individual block copolymer segments and their ratio “can easily be controlled” (Kellis: para. [00281] and [00314]). According to Kellis, such sizes are controlled in order to ensure that the formed membranes are stabilized against fusion with other materials and enzymatic degradation (Kellis: para. [00281]). In light of the foregoing, a person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to have optimized the number of segments A and B, as such adjustment is explicitly instructed by Kellis, under the guise of providing improved resistance to fusion and enzymatic degradation (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 14, Kellis teaches that, in the field of biomimetic membranes, the size of individual block copolymer segments and their ratio “can easily be controlled” (Kellis: para. [00281] and [00314]). According to Kellis, such sizes are controlled in order to ensure that the formed membranes are stabilized against fusion with other materials and enzymatic degradation (Kellis: para. [00281]). In light of the foregoing, a person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to have optimized the number of segments A and B, as such adjustment is explicitly instructed by Kellis, under the guise of providing improved resistance to fusion and enzymatic degradation (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 17, the hydrophobic block includes PDMS having 33 subunits, which a hydrophobic block according to the present specification (see above discussion). A composition and its properties have been held to be inseparable, per MPEP 2112. Therefore, the hydrophobic block disclosed in Wang must necessarily have the claimed glass transition temperature.
With regards to claim 22, Kellis teaches that, in the field of biomimetic membranes, the size of the formed membranes “can be controlled by… methods known to those skilled in the art,” and further, that the size of individual block copolymer segments and their ratio “can easily be controlled” (Kellis: para. [00281] and [00314]). According to Kellis, such sizes are controlled in order to ensure that the formed membranes are stabilized against fusion with other materials and enzymatic degradation (Kellis: para. [00281]). In light of the foregoing, a person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to have optimized the thickness of the formed membrane relative to the number of segments A and B, as such adjustment is explicitly instructed by Kellis, under the guise of providing improved resistance to fusion and enzymatic degradation (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 23, Kellis teaches that, in the field of biomimetic membranes, the size of individual block copolymer segments and their ratio “can easily be controlled” (Kellis: para. [00281] and [00314]). According to Kellis, such sizes are controlled in order to ensure that the formed membranes are stabilized against fusion with other materials and enzymatic degradation (Kellis: para. [00281]). In light of the foregoing, a person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to have optimized the number of segments A and B, as such adjustment is explicitly instructed by Kellis, under the guise of providing improved resistance to fusion and enzymatic degradation (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 24, Kellis teaches that, in the field of biomimetic membranes, the size of individual block copolymer segments and their ratio “can easily be controlled” (Kellis: para. [00281] and [00314]). According to Kellis, such sizes are controlled in order to ensure that the formed membranes are stabilized against fusion with other materials and enzymatic degradation (Kellis: para. [00281]). In light of the foregoing, a person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to have optimized the number of segments A and B, as such adjustment is explicitly instructed by Kellis, under the guise of providing improved resistance to fusion and enzymatic degradation (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 32, Kellis teaches that, in the field of biomimetic membranes, the size of the formed membranes “can be controlled by… methods known to those skilled in the art,” and further, that the size of individual block copolymer segments and their ratio “can easily be controlled” (Kellis: para. [00281] and [00314]). According to Kellis, such sizes are controlled in order to ensure that the formed membranes are stabilized against fusion with other materials and enzymatic degradation (Kellis: para. [00281]). In light of the foregoing, a person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to have optimized the thickness of the formed membrane relative to the number of segments A and B, as such adjustment is explicitly instructed by Kellis, under the guise of providing improved resistance to fusion and enzymatic degradation (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 33, Kellis teaches that, in the field of biomimetic membranes, the size of individual block copolymer segments and their ratio “can easily be controlled” (Kellis: para. [00281] and [00314]). According to Kellis, such sizes are controlled in order to ensure that the formed membranes are stabilized against fusion with other materials and enzymatic degradation (Kellis: para. [00281]). In light of the foregoing, a person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to have optimized the number of segments A and B, as such adjustment is explicitly instructed by Kellis, under the guise of providing improved resistance to fusion and enzymatic degradation (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 34, Kellis teaches that, in the field of biomimetic membranes, the size of individual block copolymer segments and their ratio “can easily be controlled” (Kellis: para. [00281] and [00314]). According to Kellis, such sizes are controlled in order to ensure that the formed membranes are stabilized against fusion with other materials and enzymatic degradation (Kellis: para. [00281]). In light of the foregoing, a person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to have optimized the number of segments A and B, as such adjustment is explicitly instructed by Kellis, under the guise of providing improved resistance to fusion and enzymatic degradation (see above discussion).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00.
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, Maria V. Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
/E.W./
Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783