DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant’s amendment filed on 6/18/2026. In particular, claim 1 has been amended to recite the species of polyfunctional monomer present. This presents the claims in a manner with a scope not previously examined. Thus, the following action is properly made FINAL.
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) 1-3, 5, 7, 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Luo (CN 112126389). As the CN document is not in English, citations are to the attached translation.
Luo teaches a block copolymer formed by reacting styrene and acrylonitrile followed by reacting butyl acrylate, ethyl acrylate, and ethylene glycol dimethacrylate (¶54). This forms a block copolymer having styrene in one block and a polyfunctional monomer in a second block. Luo teaches 10 pbw styrene, 2.5 pbw acrylonitrile in a first block (corresponding to claimed block A), 45 pbw butyl acrylate, 15 pbw ethyl acrylate, 5 pbw of acrylic acid, 5 pbw hydroxyethyl acrylate, 5 pbw acrylonitrile, 0.2 pbw ethylene glycol dimethacrylate in a second block (corresponding to claimed block B), and a third block having 10 pbw styrene, 2.5 pbw acrylonitrile. This corresponds to the copolymer having 12.5 mass% block A and 75.2 mass% block B. Styrene meets the monomer that when polymerized has a Tg of 80˚C or higher.
Luo does not explicitly recite the tensile strength after immersion at 130˚C for 30 minutes. However, Luo teaches a block copolymer having the same structural features as claimed, notably, a styrene containing block and a butyl acrylate/polyfunctional monomer containing block. Each copolymer in the instant specification with these features contains the claimed property. Copolymers that do not have the claimed property have butadiene monomers in block B. Because the copolymers of Luo have the same structural features as the copolymers in the instant examples, including a styrene block and a butyl acrylate/polyfunctional monomer block, the copolymers of Luo have physical properties that meet the instant claims, including the tensile strength after immersion at 130˚C for 30 minutes.
Luo teaches block copolymer has a molecular weight of 200,000 (Table 1, translated here)
PNG
media_image1.png
838
1078
media_image1.png
Greyscale
12.5 mass% of 200,000 is 25,000 which corresponds to the molecular weight of the first polystyrene block and meets claim 3. While Luo does not state that it is the number average molecular weight, one of ordinary skill in the art would have instantly envisaged the number average molecular weight as there is a finite number of species of molecular weights, number average, weight average, and z average.
As mentioned above, Luo teaches 45 pbw butyl acrylate, 15 pbw ethyl acrylate, 5 pbw of acrylic acid, 5 pbw hydroxyethyl acrylate, 5 pbw acrylonitrile, 0.2 pbw ethylene glycol dimethacrylate in a second block, which gives 0.2 pbw polyfunctional monomer per 75.2 parts of the block. This corresponds to about 0.27 mass% of block B and meets claim 5.
While Luo does not explicitly recite “for immersion molded body”, this is a statement of intended use. Case law holds that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2111.02, In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). In this case, the copolymer of Luo is capable of being used in immersion molding and there is no structural information provided in the intended use of “for immersion molded body”.
Luo does not teach a vulcanizing agent and accelerator are present, meaning their content is 0 mass%. This amount meets the range of claim 12. Luo teaches the composition is used to form shaped pellets (¶77) which are a molded body and meet claim 13.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 8 recites the copolymer latex contains 20-100 mass% toluene insoluble content.
Luo teaches the block copolymer is used as a latex (¶ 33-35, 50) which meets claim 7 which has a solid content of 45% (Table 1). However, as the copolymer is present in water, this appears to be the solid content in water, which does not correspond to the toluene insoluble content of claim 8.
Conclusion
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 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
Prosecution Insights