CTFR 18/249,585 CTFR 85874 DETAILED ACTION 07-103 AIA 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 All outstanding objections and rejections made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn. The new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant’s amendment filed on 5/18/26. In particular, claims 1 and 10 have been amended to limit the nitroxide. Further, claim 1 has been amended to limit the amount of block copolymer. The newly introduced limitations and/or the new claims were not present at the time of the preceding action. For this reason, the present action is properly made final. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 § 103 07-21-aia AIA 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 2004/0176553 (herein Nesvadba) . 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 Nesvadba discloses similar methods and polymers produced via utilizing nitroxide mediated polymerization. See abstract and examples. Nesvadba teaches that the nitroxide may have the structure below. PNG media_image1.png 302 188 media_image1.png Greyscale , which reads on the claimed X group CH 2 CH 3 -Phenyl when the nitroxide disassociates and initiates the polymer at one end, with the nitroxyl group at the other terminus reading on the claimed second structure. See paragraph 99, 52, and examples. 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 Nesvadba because one would want to utilize nitrioxides taught as having high purity, yield, of industrial value that are thermally stable and can be stored. See paragraph 5-8 of Nesvadba. 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 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0251329 (herein Ness) in view of US 2004/0176553 (herein Nesvadba) 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 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 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 2004/0176553 (herein Nesvadba) and US 2011/0207841 (herein Kosar) . The discussion with respect to Ness set-forth above is incorporated herein by reference. 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 Ness et al. have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Ness does not teach free radical polymerization, only in the final stage citing that “conventional free radical initiator” (t-butyl hydroperoxide) is only added at the end. In response, the examiner disagrees. First, applicant is fundamentally wrong with their assessment. Conventional free radical initiator need not to be added to produce free radical polymerization. The examples utilize Blockbuilder (BB-MA), which acts as a (free radical) initiator, along with a nitroxide source control agent during controlled free radical polymerization. See paragraph 16 and 27. The broader disclosure consistently describes the reaction as a free radical emulsion polymerization (see abstract, paragraph 2-4 and 16, note that nitroxide mediate polymerization, NMP, is specifically referred to as a living free radical polymerization). The reaction produces a polymeric dispersion. See paragraph 30 and examples. In other words, NMP used in Ness is the same NMP utilized in the instant invention, which is known to proceed via controlled free radical polymerization by definition. With respect to Nesvadba, it is utilized merely as a teaching reference for the specific nitroxide. As elucidated above, Ness is identical to the instant process and polymer with the proviso that it utilizes different nitroxyl radicals. Selection of the appropriate nitroxyl radical in the NMP of Ness would have been prima facie obvious especially considering the Nesvadba teaches that the claimed nitroxyl radicals are advantageous because they have high purity, yield, of industrial value that are thermally stable and can be stored. Conclusion 07-40 AIA Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. 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 Application/Control Number: 18/249,585 Page 2 Art Unit: 1764
Prosecution Insights