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 .
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 8-15, in the reply filed on 1/28/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 1/28/2026.
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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim, RSC Adv., 2017, 7, pg. 5948-5956.
Kim teaches polystyrene-polyolefin multiblock copolymers (abstract, pg. 5953, Table 2).
It is noted that while claim 8 is recited in the product-by-process format by use of the language, “formed from the process of claim 1…” Case law holds that:
Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
To the extent that the process limitations in a product-by-process claim do not carry weight absent a showing of criticality, the reference discloses the claimed product in the sense that the prior art product structure is seen to be no different from that indicated by the claims.
In this situation, the only structural information present in the process of claim 1 is an “ethylene/vinylarene multiblock interpolymer”. This is present in the compositions of Kim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-15 are allowed.
Claim 9 recites a composition comprising an ethylene/vinylarene multiblock interpolymer comprising at least one structure of Structure 1 or Structure 2, -(AR)-(AP)-(AR)-(AP)- (Structure 1), (AR)-(AP)-(AR)-(AP) (Structure 2), and wherein each (AR) segment independently comprises, in polymerized form, >10 mol% of the vinylarene, based on the total moles of polymerized monomers in the (AR) segment; and wherein each (AP) segment independently comprises, in polymerized form, < 10 mol% of the vinylarene, based on the total moles of polymerized monomers in the (AP) segment.
Relevant prior art includes Kim, RSC Adv., 2017, 7, pg. 5948-5956, Hagihara, Polymer Journal (2012) 44, 147-154, Arriola (US 2007/0167578), Liu, Polym. Chem. 2019, 10, 235-243, Peng, Chinese J. Polym. Sci. 2018, 36, 222-230, and Mastan, Macromolecules, 2017, 50, 9173-9187.
Kim fails to teach a block interpolymer having four or more blocks (or segments) as required by structures 1 and 2 of claim 9. Kim fails to teach the molar% of vinylarene in each block and thus does not teach the amounts of vinylarene in the (AR) and (AP) segments in claim 9.
Hagihara teaches ethylene-styrene block copolymer containing syndiotactic polystyrene sequences (abstract). Hagihara teaches the insoluble portion of the copolymer contains ethylene-ethylene sequences and the soluble portion contains styrene styrene sequences (abstract).
Hagihara teaches example 11 which has 3.3 mol% styrene content in the insoluble part and 29.2 mol% styrene content in the soluble part (Table 3). The insoluble part corresponds to the claimed vinylarene poor segment and the soluble part corresponds to the claimed vinylarene rich segment. The amounts of 3.3 mol% and 29.2 mol% meet the ranges of claim 9. Hagihara fails to teach a block interpolymer having four or more blocks as required by structures 1 and 2 of claim 9. There is no motivation present in Hagihara to use the claimed monomer amounts or to use in a multiblock structure having four or more blocks.
Arriola teaches compositions of multi-block copolymers using two different catalysts and a chain shuttling agent (abstract) where suitable monomers include ethylene and styrene (¶ 123). Arriola fails to teach a block interpolymer having four or more blocks as required by structures 1 and 2 of claim 9. Arriola fails to teach the molar% of vinylarene in each block and thus does not teach the amounts of vinylarene in the (AR) and (AP) segments in claim 9.
Liu teaches ethylene/styrene copolymers using a scandium catalyst (abstract) where the resulting copolymers are multi-block (pg. 236). Liu fails to teach a block interpolymer having four or more blocks as required by structures 1 and 2 of claim 9. Liu fails to teach the molar% of vinylarene in each block and thus does not teach the amounts of vinylarene in the (AR) and (AP) segments in claim 9.
Peng teaches the polymerization of styrene with ethylene to give syndiotactic polystyrene sequences (abstract, Table 3) which correspond to a copolymer block. Peng fails to teach a block interpolymer having four or more blocks as required by structures 1 and 2 of claim 9. Peng does not teach the amounts of vinylarene in the (AR) and (AP) segments in claim 9.
Mastan teaches block copolymers having multiple blocks such as tetrablocks and octablocks (Fig. 3). Mastan teaches the copolymers are styrene and butadiene copolymers (abstract). Mastan falls outside the scope of the instant invention because Mastan fails to teach ethylene as a copolymer and because Mastan does not teach the amounts of vinylarene in the (AR) and (AP) segments in claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT C BOYLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7347. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 10am-4pm.
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.
/ROBERT C BOYLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764