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 1-2, 4 and 7) in the reply filed on January 5, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 3, 5-6 and 8-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim 7 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. Regarding claim 7 , applicant has not indicated what “b” is in the structures. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends . Regarding claim 7 , this claim depends from claim 2 and in claim 2, it appears that there are only acrylamides present in both block A and B. However, claim 7 has a number of structures which are not acrylamides in both blocks: 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. Claim(s) 1-2, 4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Everaerts et al (US 2004/0097658) . Regarding claim s 1 -2 and 4 , Everaerts teaches a deblock ([0033]) block copolymer comprising: a block which has methacrylamide ([006 1] ) which reads on the recited block A and a second block which contains n-octyl acrylamide ([0051]) which reads on recited block B ( N-alkyl acrylamide having an alkyl moiety with 8 carbon atoms). Everaerts fails to specifically exemplify the recited copolymer . However, Everaerts discloses each of the components of the blocks , and teaches that they are all suitable for use in a copolymer . It is within the ordinary level of skill in the art to make any of the copolymers suggested by a reference, including selecting materials from a list in a reference. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to prepare any of the copolymers suggested by Everaerts , including the claimed copolymer . In view of this, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the present invention to use the teachings of Everaerts to arrive at the presently claimed invention . It would have been nothing more than using known monomers in a typical manner to achieve predictable results. KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 418, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) . Regarding claim 7 , Everaerts teaches the following structure: Everaerts teaches that the portion with the methacrylamide has a molecular weight of between 30,000 to about 500,000 ([0067]). Given that methacrylamide has a molecular weight of 85.1, x of the above formula can be calculated to range from 352-5882. And the block that contains the N-octyl acrylamide has a molecular weight of below 100,000 ([0056]) and the N-octyl acrylamide makes up, at most 50 molar % ([0053]). Given that the molecular weight of n- octyl acrylamide is 183.29, the value of y will overlap the claimed amount. Double Patenting A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co. , 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert , 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957). A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101. Claims 1-2, 4 and 7 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-2, 4 and 7 of copending Application No. 18/558,920 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT DORIS L LEE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3872 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8 am - 5 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Arrie Lanee Reuther can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT DORIS L. LEE Primary Examiner Art Unit 1764 /DORIS L LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764