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 .
Response to Amendment
No new grounds of rejection are set forth below. Thus, the following action is made final.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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).
The rejection is adequately set forth in paragraph 8 of the Office Action mailed on March 30, 2026 and is incorporated here by reference.
Double Patenting
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).
The rejection is adequately set forth in paragraph 10 of the Office Action mailed on March 30, 2026 and is incorporated here by reference.
Response to Arguments
The 35 USC 112(b) and 35 USC 112(d) rejections set forth in paragraphs 4 and 7 in the office action mailed on March 30, 2026 are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendment filed on August 31, 2026.
Applicants’ arguments filed August 31, 2026 regarding the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons set forth below:
Applicant’s argument: The rejection has used impermissible hindsight to arrive at the claimed subject matter.
Examiner’s response: Only teachings within the Everaerts reference has been used. No teachings have been gleaned from applicant’s invention.
Applicant’s argument: Everaerts does not teach all the elements of the claimed subject matter. Everaerts does not disclose the claimed arrangement of the claimed block A and block B. Most notably, the action cites paragraphs [0051] and [0061] as support for the N-octyl acrylamide. It is noted that [0061] refers to block B, but [0051] refers to block A.
Examiner’s response: It is noted that in paragraph [0061], Everaerts teaches that the monomer can be a N-alkylated acrylamide. Paragraph [0051] is used only to teach what Everaerts considers to be an n-alkylated acrylamide, namely an n-octyl acrylamide which is appropriately used in block B.
Applicant’s argument: Everaerts’ own disclosure teaches away from the block arrangement recited in the pending claims. Everaerts describes the A blocks as relatively high glass transition temperatures and B as relatively low glass transition temperature. Everaerts does not provide data or evidence that the specific block arrangement showing that the specific block arrangement would retain the desired phase behavior, glass transition temperature relationship, or other desired properties of Everaerts.
Examiner’s response: It is noted that the claims do not have limitations regarding glass transition temperatures and Everaerts clearly teaches that the recited monomers are appropriate for each of the respective blocks as presently claimed. As the claims are written, the blocks are not necessarily comprised 100% of the recited repeating units, other types of monomers can be incorporated to meet the desired properties of Everaerts.
Applicant’s argument: The applicant requests the double patenting rejection against 18/558,920 be withdrawn because applicant intends it to go abandoned.
Examiner’s response: As the co-pending application has not yet been abandoned, the double patenting rejection above has been maintained. The examiner suggests filing an express abandonment in the copending application so that the intended abandonment is reflected in the prosecution record.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DORIS L LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3872. The examiner can normally be reached 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, 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.
DORIS L. LEE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1764
/DORIS L LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights