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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 7, at the end of line 3, “a” should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8, 9, 13, and 14 are 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 8, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). In line 6, the phrase “such as” is used and it is unclear if “poly(N-methylvinylpyridinium) (PMVP), including poly(N-methyl-2-vinylpyridinium) (PM2VP), and copolymers thereof” are part of the claim. For the purpose of further examination, the limitations following such as will be interpreted as not being part of the claim.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 recites the limitation "polyelectrolyte group" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of further examination, this will be interpreted to be polyelectrolyte polymer, which refers back properly to claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 recites the limitation "the molar ratio" in line 1; “the negatively charged groups” in lines 1 and 2; and “the positively charged polysiloxane” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For the purpose of further examination, claim 13 will be interpreted as “wherein a molar ratio of negatively charged groups of the negatively charged polyelectrolyte polymer to the positively charged groups of the polysiloxane comprising one or more positively charged groups is from 10:1 to 1:2.”
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 recites the limitation "the molar ratio" in line 1; “the positively charged groups” in lines 1 and 2; and “the negatively charged polysiloxane” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For the purpose of further examination, claim 14 will be interpreted as “wherein a molar ratio of positively charged groups of the positively charged polyelectrolyte polymer to the negatively charged groups of the polysiloxane comprising one or more negatively charged groups is from 10:1 to 1:2.”
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.
Claims 1, 2, 7-10, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Deng et al., “Formation of polyelectrolyte complexes based on pendant type imidazolium organosilicon polymer with poly(sodium styrene sulfonate), Polymer, Vol. 39, No. 23, pp. 5643-5648, (1998).
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 10, Deng et al. teaches polyelectrolyte complexes comprising poly(sodium styrene sulfonate used as the polyanion (negatively charged polyelectrolyte polymer) (pg. 5643, Experiment) and an imidazolinium polysiloxane used as the polycation (polysiloxane comprising a positively charged group) (pg. 5643, Experiment).
Regarding claim 2, Deng et al. teaches that the polycations are prepared by co-condensing dimethyl silanediol with an imidazolinium-functional methyl diethoxysilane (pp. 5643, right col.; pp. 5644, left col.). Condensation of dimethylsilanediol necessarily furnishes dimethylsiloxane repeat units, and the co-monomer likewise bears two carbon-bound substituents on silicon, i.e., a methyl group and the imidazolinylethyl group. Therefore, the polysiloxane of Deng et al. comprises a dialkylpolysiloxane. The claim does not exclude additional siloxy units being present within the polymer.
Regarding claim 13, the solutions for each of the polycation and the polyanion were 0.1 M (pg. 5644, Preparation of PEC), which provides a molar ratio of the negatively charged groups of the negatively charge polyelectrolyte polymer to the positively charged groups of the positively charged polysiloxane of 1:1.
Regarding claims 7, 8, and 14, these claims further define components which are not required by their parent claim 1.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3, 12, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng et al., “Formation of polyelectrolyte complexes based on pendant type imidazolium organosilicon polymer with poly(sodium styrene sulfonate), Polymer, Vol. 39, No. 23, pp. 5643-5648, (1998) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Saxena et al. (US 2013/0172419).
Regarding claim 3, Deng et al. teaches the composition of claim 1 as set forth above. Deng et al. does not teach that the polysiloxane comprises polydimethyl siloxane (PDMS). However, Saxena et al. teaches silicone ionomers constructed on a polydimethylsiloxane backbone, including hydroxyl terminated polydimethylsiloxane (¶137) and vinyl terminated sulfonated polydimethylsiloxane (¶134). Deng et al. and Saxena et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as that of the instant invention, namely composite compositions of charge-functionalized polysiloxanes with other polymers. At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a polydimethylsiloxane as the polymer backbone, as taught by Saxena et al., in the charged siloxane polymer, as taught by Deng et al., and would have been motivated to do so because it provides high oxygen permeability, comfort, improved flexibility to the healthcare and personal care (¶11) articles it produces (¶79). Deng et al. teaches that polyelectrolyte complexes are applied in the medical and pharmaceutical fields (pp. 5643, left col.).
Regarding claim 12, by making the above substitution of the type of siloxane polymer (polydimethylsiloxane), the composite becomes one wherein the polysiloxane is polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) and the negatively charged polyelectrolyte polymer is polystyrene sulfonate (PSS). Therefore, claim 12 is obvious based on the above reasoning for claim 3.
Regarding claim 16, Deng et al. teaches the composition of claim 1 as set forth above. Deng et al. teaches that the polyelectrolyte complex is recovered as a particulate precipitate separated by centrifugation (pp. 5644, right col.) but does not teach that they have a diameter of less than 200nm. However, Saxena et al. teaches that in ionically modified polydiorganosiloxane composites the materials are characterized by the assembly of the ionic groups at ion rich domains of specific dimensions of 40-200 nm which act as the ionic filler to the silicone elastomer, and that these domains help in the formation of transparent to translucent silicone elastomers that show improved water absorption, and are capable of controlled delivery of the active ingredients in different applications with a great control on the reproducibility (¶79). At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the composition, as taught by Deng et al., as nanoparticles with a size of 40 to 200 nm, as taught by Saxena et al., and would have been motivated to do so in order to obtain the optical clarity, water absorption, and reproducible controlled-release behavior that Saxena attributes to ionic domains of that size.
Regarding claim 17, Deng et al. teaches the composition of claim 1 as set forth above. Deng et al. does not teach that the composition further comprises an inorganic drying agent, a filler, a reinforcing agent, magnetic particles, a wet/dry indicator, a catalyst a pharmaceutical agent, or any combination thereof. However, Saxena et al. teaches that its composition comprises a filler and reinforcing agent (¶100), a catalyst (¶145), and a pharmaceutical agent (¶129). At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add one or more of these conventional additives, as taught by Saxena et al., into the composition of Deng et al., and would have been motivated to do so in order to improve mechanical and thermal properties (filler), to effect cure (catalyst), or to deliver a therapeutic payload (pharmaceutical agent).
Regarding claim 19, Deng et al. teaches the composition of claim 1 as set forth above. Deng et al. does not teach a person or home care product that comprises the composition. However, Saxena et al teaches that the silicone ionomer composite can be useful in the areas of healthcare, personal care, automobile, construction, paints, coatings, household, textile and apparel, laundry detergents, and agriculture (¶13). Further, Saxena provides an extensive enumeration of personal care embodiments including deodorants, antiperspirants, skin lotions, moisturizers, toners, cleansing products, styling gels, hair dyes, hair color products, hair straighteners, nail polish, sunscreen, and anti-aging products (¶131). At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to formulate the composition, as taught by Deng et al., into a personal or home care product, as taught by Saxena et al., and would have been motivated to do so because Saxena et al. teaches that ionically modified siloxane composites deliver conditioning, substantivity, water absorption, and controlled release of actives in precisely these product categories (¶79).
Regarding claim 20, Deng et al. teaches the composition of claim 1 as set forth above. Deng et al. does not teach a pharmaceutical composition comprising the claimed composition with a pharmaceutical agent and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier. However, Saxena et al. teaches that another application of the present invention in the healthcare field is in form of pressure sensitive adhesives for transdermal delivery of drugs (¶125). Saxena et al. explains that due to the ionic nature of silicones used in the present invention, such drugs are better able to interact with the silicones, leading to a modified and desirable release profile (¶126) and that the water absorbing capability of silicone ionomers implies that a greater portion of the drug is accessible to the body fluids (¶127). Saxena claims compositions further including one or more components selected from therapeutically and/or cosmetically active agents, pharmaceutical excipients …(claim 37) and a drug delivery device (claim 42). At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine the composite, as taught by Deng et al., with a pharmaceutical agent and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier, as taught by Saxena et al., and would have been motivated to do so because Deng et al. itself teaches that polyelectrolyte complexes are applied in “medicine, pharmaceutical” technologies (pp. 5643, left col.), and Saxena et al. teaches that the ionic sites of a charge-modified siloxane composite serve as binding sites that modulate and sustain drug release (¶13).
Claims 4, 5, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng et al., “Formation of polyelectrolyte complexes based on pendant type imidazolium organosilicon polymer with poly(sodium styrene sulfonate), Polymer, Vol. 39, No. 23, pp. 5643-5648, (1998) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schaefer et al. (US 4,891,166).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Deng et al. teaches the composition of claim 1 as set forth above. Deng et al. teaches that the positively charged groups are pendant groups along the polymer chain and does not teach that the positively charged groups are terminal groups on the polymer. However, Schaefer et al. discloses novel diquaternary polysiloxanes, whose quaternary nitrogen groups are terminally linked to the polysiloxane molecule (Col. 1, lines 10-13) having the block architecture ABA, where the quaternary nitrogen blocks or groups (quaternary ammonium groups) are represented by the letter A and the polysiloxane blocks by the letter B (Col. 4, lines 65-68). Therefore, these compounds carry a positively charged group at both ends of the polysiloxane. Deng et al. and Schaefer et al. are analogous art because they are both from the same field of endeavor as that of the instant invention, namely cationically functionalized polysiloxanes. At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to put the cationic groups, as taught by Deng et al., on the terminal ends of the polymer, as taught by Schaefer et al., and would have been motivated to do so because Schaefer et al. teaches that terminal attachment preserves uninterrupted dimethylsiloxy chains — retaining the desirable “siloxane character” — while avoiding the unmodified-siloxane fraction inherent in pendant-functional equilibration products (Col. 2, lines 20-45).
Regarding claim 11, by making the above substitution of the type (quaternary ammonium) and position (terminal) of the charged groups, the composite becomes a polysiloxane comprising an ammonium group at each end of the polysiloxane and a negatively charged polyelectrolyte polymer comprising sulfonate groups. Therefore, claim 11 is obvious based on the above reasoning for claims 4 and 5.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng et al., “Formation of polyelectrolyte complexes based on pendant type imidazolium organosilicon polymer with poly(sodium styrene sulfonate), Polymer, Vol. 39, No. 23, pp. 5643-5648, (1998) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Delis et al. (US 9,308,668).
Regarding claim 18, Deng et al. teaches the composition of claim 1 as set forth above. Deng et al does not teach an article coated with the composite composition. However, Delis et al. teaches combinations of so-called cationic polyorganosiloxanes or silanes, which comprise for example, amino groups, ammonium groups, quaternary ammonium groups, and quaternary phosphonium groups, with so-called anionic polyorganosiloxanes or silanes, which comprise carboxylic acid groups/carboxylate groups, sulfonic acid/sulfonate groups, sulfuric acid half ester groups/sulfate groups, and phosphoric ester/phosphate groups, at molar ratios of cationic groups:anionic groups being 90:10 to 10:90 (Col. 15, lines 15–32). Delis et al. further teaches applying this composition to a lignocellulosic material to form a coated- or impregnated-lignocellulosic material (claim 1). Deng et al. and Delis et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as that of the instant invention, namely that of charge-functionalized polyorganosiloxane compositions. At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the composition, as taught by Deng et al., to an article, as taught by Delis et al., and would have been motivated to do so because ionically functionalized polyorganosiloxanes applied as a coating anchor durably within the substrate apparently by reason of their functionalization and thereby confer dimensional stability, reduced water uptake, and resistance to leaching (Col. 21, lines 22–27; Col. 3, lines 18–20).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 15 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 is requires that the positively charged group, which is the group on the polysiloxane, is NH3+. No prior art of record teaches this limitation or renders it obvious. Therefore, it is allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 requires that the polysiloxane is encapsulated by the positively charged polyelectrolyte polymer or the negatively charged polyelectrolyte polymer. No prior art of record teaches this limitation or renders it obvious. Therefore, it is allowable subject matter.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA C SCOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-3303. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00, 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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/ANGELA C SCOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights