DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior office action.
All outstanding objections and rejections made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/19/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6-7, 9-11, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0251329 (herein Ness) in view of US 2016/0032224 (herein Kou).
As to claims 1, 3, 10-11 and 15, Ness discloses a process of producing a polymeric dispersion, block copolymers thereof and dispersion thereof (see abstract and examples) comprising via nitroxide mediated controlled living free radical emulsion polymerization (see paragraph 2-3, 5, and 45), such uses nitroxides such as Blocbuildiner/SG1. See examples.
The polymerization of butyl acrylate (BA), styrene, methyl methacrylate in the presence of a diblock copolymer (see paragraph 61) of block of 2-acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulfonic acid (AMPSNa, reading on a second blo0ck comprising an ethylenically unsaturated monomer with sulfonic acid groups) and a block consisting (100%) of butyl acrylate (BA, alkyl acrylate of at least 80 wt%). Note that in example 1, the second block with sulfonic groups is first polymerized in paragraph 59, the first block with alkyl acrylate blocks is polymerized in paragraph 60 and the monomer composition is polymerized in paragraph 61. Also note the other examples, that read on the claimed invention. Note that example 1 utilizes SG1 (nitroxide). The reaction is described as a free radical emulsion polymerization (see abstract, paragraph 2-4 and 16, note that nitroxide mediate polymerization is specifically referred to as a living free radical polymerization). The reaction produces a polymeric dispersion. See paragraph 30 and examples.
Example 1 discloses that 752 g of the latex (which is 4.8% solids) is used for a total of about 36.1 g of block copolymer. Further, 424.2 g BA, 35 g Styrene and 224 g MMA, for a total of 683.2 g monomer is I polymerized. Therefore, about 5.3 parts of the block copolymer (36/683.2) is present based on 100 parts of the total monomers.
Ness is silent on the specific nitroxide
Kou discloses similar methods and polymers produced via utilizing nitroxide mediated polymerization. See abstract and examples. Kou teaches that the nitroxide may have the structure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
296
321
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, which reads on the claimed formula of claim 1 with the nitroxyl group at the other terminus reading on the claimed second structure. See paragraph 50 and examples. The use of the nitroxides are preferred in controlling the polymerization, allowing starting and stopping of the polymerization at will and allowing for efficient polymerization of block copolymers. See paragraphs 52-54.
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention to have modified the nitroxide of Ness with the nitroxide of Nitroxide because one would want to utilize alternative nitroxides that are taught in Kou because one to control the polymerization, allowing starting and stopping of polymerization to allow for efficient polymerization of the claimed block copolymers See paragraph 50-54 of Kou.
As to claim 6, In example 1, 16.8 g BA is polymerized at 95% conversion,
so BA reacted: mBA,rxn=16.8×0.95=15.96 g nBA,rxn=128.1715.96=0.1245 mol
BB-MA defines chain count, the number of living chains in the portion of macroinitiator solution used is proportional to how much of the macroinitiator batch charged.
Macroinitiator batch total mass: 389.29+2.265+481.515+24.805+17.296+178.71=1093.881 g
Of that, 80.4 g of that solution, so the fraction is: f=80.4/1093.881=0.07350
Total chains in the full batch = 0.0650 mol, so chains charged into latex reactor: nchains=0.0650×0.07350=0.00478 mol
Degree of polymerization of the BA block: DPn(BA)= 0.1245/0.00478=26.0
Therefore, about 26 butyl acrylate repeat units per chain, which is within the claimed range.
As to claim 7, as deduced for claim 26, the first block (BA) is 26 units. Paragraph 59 of example states that the second block (AMPSNa) is 3 kg/mol, thus is about 13 units (3000/230). Therefore, the ratio is about 2:1, which is within the claimed range.
As to claim 9, the process is a feed method. See paragraph 56 and examples.
As to claim 14, the polymer is used in emulsion polymerization of the third block and is amphiphilic (emulsifying properties), thus would also act as a emulsifying agent in the polymerization. See abstract, paragraph 16 and examples.
Claim(s) 2, 4 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0251329 (herein Ness) in view of US 2016/0032224 (herein Kou) and US 2011/0207841 (herein Kosar).
As to claim 2, Ness prepares the hydrophilic (second) block first, followed by the hydrophobic (first) block. Thus, the nitroxy radical would be the terminal group of the first block. Therefore, Ness is silent on the second block having a nitroxyl group.
Kosar teaches similar block copolymers. See paragraph 22 and examples. An aqueous polymer dispersions of the polymer are taught. See paragraph 45 and examples. The examples utilize Blocbuildiner, which has SG1 and is attached via an nitroxide. The examples show that the hydrophobic (e.g. alkyl acrylate) blocks may be polymerized first followed by the hydrophilic (second block) and thus the nitroxyl radical would be on the second block in this order.
As discussed above, the nitroxide mediated polymerization of the block copolymers can proceed via two options known in the art: 1) polymerize first block last and 2) polymerize the second block last and thus yielding the nitroxyl on the respective blocks. Further, these design features would result in the same polymer with the proviso of where the nitroxyl radical is located. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to have modified the method of Ness to prepare the second block last and thus having a terminal nitroxyl radical group on the second block because Kosar teaches that this method is suitable in preparing similar polymers as an alternative method and one would expect substantially the same polymer.
As to claims 4 and 12, Ness teaches that the sulfonic acid monomer is 2-acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulfonic acid (see paragraph 20-22 and examples) not the claimed monomers.
Kosar teaches similar methods of producing similar block copolymers having sulfonic acid monomer blocks and alkyl acrylate blocks utilizing nitroxide free radical polymerization. See abstract and examples. Kosar teaches that 2-acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulfonic acid and salts thereof (AMPS, 2-acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulfonate) are interchangeable with styrene sulfonic acid and salts (SSA) thereof. See paragraph 24 and 37.
Case law has established that it is prima facie obvious to substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). MPEP 2143, rationale (B). In the present case, it is evident that Ness differs from the presently claimed process and polymer by the substitution of SSA for AMPS. Additionally, it is evident that the substituted component is known in the art, as both are taught in Kosar. Additionally, it is evident that a person of ordinary skill in the art could have of substituted in SSA for AMPS and that the results of the substitution (a sulfonic acid monomer) would have been predictable. In light of this discussion, it is apparent that the presently claimed invention is arrived at by simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the present invention to have the substituted SSA for AMPS as suggested by Kosar, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention. Additionally, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to have substituted SSA for AMPS because Kosar teaches that each is suitable and interchangeable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Specifically, note that Kou has been utilized against the new limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK S KAUCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-7340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-6 PM EST.
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.
/MARK S KAUCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
