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, claims 1-26, and the species: amphiphilic solvent, repeated dilutions, triblock copolymer, polymer containing hydrophobic block and hydrophilic block, and destabilization from intercalating at interfaces, in the reply filed on 3/4/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-10, 12, 14-17, and 19-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/4/26.
Claim 29 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/4/26.
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.
Claim 24 is 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 24 recites the limitation "the second plurality" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 13, 18, and 23-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gonzáléz-Perez, A.; Stibius, K. B.; Vissing, T.; Nielsen, C. H.; Mouritsen, O. G. Langmuir 2009, 25(18), 10447-10450 [IDS 11/9/23].
Regarding claims 1-6, 13, 18, and 23-24: Gonzáléz-Perez et al. (Langmuir 2009, 25(18), 10447-10450) discloses methods of producing triblock copolymer membranes [abstract; § Experimental Section], wherein a triblock copolymer consisting of a middle block of poly(dimethylsiloxane) (PDMS) and two side blocks of poly(2-methyloxazoline) (PMOXA) carrying methacrylate end groups (PMOXA7-PDMS60-PMOXA7; 5800 g/mol) [§ materials] was dissolved in chloroform, decane was added to the solution and chloroform was evaporated [§ methods]. An ethanolic solution of gramicidin A (gA) was added to the solution of the triblock copolymer and a membrane was formed in electrolyte conditions of pH 1 HCl. After membrane formation, additional ethanolic gA solution was added (ethanol 46.07 g/mol) and trans-bilayer potentials up to 500 mV were applied across the membrane {electroporation} [§ ion channel insertion]. The resulting membrane has a channel length of ~ 22 Å (2.2 nm) [§ Results and Discussion].
Regarding claims 25-26: Gonzáléz-Perez et al. (Langmuir 2009, 25(18), 10447-10450) discloses the basic claimed method [as set forth above with respect to claim 23].
The claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the chaotropic solvent destabilizes the polymer membrane by intercalating between the hydrophilic blocks [instant claim 25]; the chaotropic solvent destabilizes the polymer membrane by intercalating at interfaces between the hydrophilic blocks and the hydrophobic blocks [instant claim 26], would inherently be achieved, as “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [see MPEP 2112.01].
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.
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.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gonzáléz-Perez, A.; Stibius, K. B.; Vissing, T.; Nielsen, C. H.; Mouritsen, O. G. Langmuir 2009, 25(18), 10447-10450 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stava et al. (US 2015/0152495).
Regarding claim 11: Gonzáléz-Perez et al. (Langmuir 2009, 25(18), 10447-10450) discloses the basic claimed method [as set forth above with respect to claim 1].
Gonzáléz-Perez et al. (Langmuir 2009, 25(18), 10447-10450) does not disclose repeated dilutions using a buffer solution. However, Stava et al. (US ‘495) discloses nanopore sequencing [0005], wherein the compartment can be flushed with buffer to avoid further insertions [0169; 0182]. Gonzáléz-Perez et al. (Langmuir 2009, 25(18), 10447-10450) and Stava et al. (US ‘495) are analogous art because they are concerned with a similar technical difficulty, namely membrane preparation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined flushing with a buffer, as taught by Maki et al. (JP ‘717) in the invention of Gonzáléz-Perez et al. (Langmuir 2009, 25(18), 10447-10450), and would have been motivated to do so since Stava et al. (US ‘495) disclose the compartment can be flushed with buffer to avoid further insertions [0169; 0182].
See attached form PTO-892.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL F PEPITONE whose telephone number is (571)270-3299. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00 AM - 3:30 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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL F PEPITONE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights